Sitting of 10 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

  NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 21st March.

  NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY [STAMP DUTIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire. N.) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act would have been required to pass to and vest in the Society certain property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of five pounds, and such Duty shall be impressed upon the copy of the intended Act to be delivered to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the section of this Act the marginal note whereof is 'Copy of Act to be registered."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. LOUGH: Surely there should be some explanation of this. Does it form any precedent?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): This is a clause which has been inserted in a considerable number of Bills of a similar character, and it meets the convenience of the Inland Revenue and the corporation in question. The Inland Revenue are satisfied that there will be no loss to the revenue arising from this transaction.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: That, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, may be a perfectly satisfactory explanation, but I think the House should regard with the utmost jealousy this putting down of private business on a Friday.
  TME DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no discussion on a Friday upon this business.
  MR. LOUGH: Then I object.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Arbroath; Brechin; and Forfar; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Accounts presented, for the year 1904, with an Account of extraordinary Works executed other than the general Repairs for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Circular as to Additional Grants on Account of Pupil Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CODE 1905).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1905, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates of 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Norway respecting Telegraphic Communication between the two Countries. Signed at Stockholm, 2nd February, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dublin Police and Carmen.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware of the action of the police authorities in proceeding against the carmen of Dublin using a certain hazard for obstruction; whether the divisional magistrate has suggested means whereby the obstruction would be removed; and whether, seeing that the tramway company and the Carmen's Association have agreed to a plan whereby all cause for complaint has been removed, he will take such steps, under all the circumstances, as will prevent any further police proceedings in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The magistrate adjourned this case for a month in order that a point of law involved might be discussed by counsel. The jurisdiction of the chief commissioner to regulate stands under the 49th Section of the 16 & 17 Vict., cap. 112, has been raised, and it is essential that this point should be determined in the first instance, whatever arrangements may ultimately be practicable.

  Royal Fleet Reserve.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the
  1048
  present number of the Royal Fleet Reserve, as compared with that expected in the Estimate explained in 1902; and whether the Government have in view the Report of the Grey Committee that the minimum rather than the total number of Reserve that must be provided would be 50 per cent. of the number of men required to mobilise the Fleet and harbour establishments.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The present number of the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, is 5,754, or an increase of 2,865 in about two years, the number borne in November, 1902, having been 2,889. The estimates of Sir Edward Grey's Committee were based on the probable war Fleet of 1906–7, and though only half the period comprised in their calculations has elapsed, the result has shown the general correctness of their expectations as regards the growth of this Reserve. The total number of active service and Reserve ratings provided in the Estimates for 1905–6 will give a margin of more than 50 per cent. after the Fleet and harbour establishments have been mobilised, and the Admiralty consider that the provision is for the present sufficient.

  Weighing of Postal Packets.
  COLONEL WELBY (Taunton): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many poor persons have no private means of weighing printed papers for post; and whether he can say what regulation in the Post Office Guide denies to the public the right of having printed packets weighed as part service for postage paid, while compelling the public to hand in all parcels for parcel post to be weighed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The regulation on the subject will be found at page 46, paragraph 4, of the Post Office Guide. It may well be the case that many people have no private means of weighing packets for the post, but in practice postmasters almost invariably weigh packets for the public when asked to do so. If the hon. Member has any specific case in view and will be good enough to give me particulars, I will have inquiry made.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to establishing a system by which a printed packet weighed at a post office for sending abroad shall be so stamped or marked as to identify the office, and thus save the detention of the packet in the General Post Office until insufficient postage has been collected from the addressee in a foreign country.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A packet for a place abroad which is entitled to pass as a packet of printed papers is sent forward without delay, even if the postage paid is insufficient. A packet which exceeds the maximum weight for printed papers becomes subject to the rules for parcels, which require payment of the whole postage before despatch. Cases in which the error is caused by a mistake in weighing the packet at a post office are so rare that I do not think it necessary to make special provision for them.

  Electrified District Railway—Driver's Assistant
  MR. McKENNA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the arrangements by the Metropolitan District Railway for driving the proposed new electric trains, no apparent provision is being made for the driver to be accompanied by an assistant; and that, in case of an accident to the driver, no competent person would be present to take charge of the train; and whether the Board of Trade will bring the question before the directors with a view to ensuring the safety of passengers and officials.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a recent Question by the hon. Member for North-West Durham on this subject. The reply is printed in yesterday's† Votes.

  Derailments of Tender-Engines drawing Passenger Trains.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could state how many cases of derailment of tender-engines running passenger trains have occurred during the twenty years ending
  † See page 907.
  1050
  1904; and if he will give a Return of these, showing date, place of accident, and railway, and the conclusions of the Board of Trade inspectors thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I will cause a Return to be prepared of the cases of derailment of tender-engines drawing passenger trains that have occurred during the past twenty years and have formed the subject of inquiry by the railway inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. This Return will include the particulars asked for by my hon. and gallant friend. To give the total number of derailments without particulars would not be useful.

  Meat Inspection.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdon, hire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been directed to the absence of uniformity in the various systems of meat inspection now in local operation in England, and whether he would consider the advisability of establishing some system of branding or certificate, such as exits in other countries, by which butchers and other vendors of meat who have purchased their supplies from Smithfield, or some other central market under scientific inspection, may be able to associate with the meat so purchased the certificate which passed the meat as sound and free from disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn to the alleged absence of uniformity as regards meat inspection by local authorities in England, and I have instructed one of the medical inspectors of my Department to make inquiry on the subject. I will give consideration to the suggestion of my noble friend in connection with the report of the inspector when it is received.

  Damage to Roads by Traction Engines.
  MR. LYELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the damage done to roads by the corrugated wheels of traction engines, and the consequent charges on the rates, he can hold out any prospect of legislation forbidding the use of such grooved and corrugated wheels.

  1051
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is an express provision in Section 28 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, allowing the driving wheels of a locomotive to be shod with diagonal cross bars. Under the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, I have varied the requirements of this section so as to allow of the use of wheels which are shod with wooden blocks, and I am now dealing with an application to authorise the use of what is known as the "pedrail," but I am afraid that I could not hold out any prospect of legislation forbidding the use of a form of wheel which is specifically contemplated by the Act of 1878, and which has been employed ever since the passing of that Act.

  Protection from Fire—Appointment of Committee.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will set up the Committee on Means of Protection from Fire agreed upon last session.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I shall be happy to consult with the hon. Member as to the steps to be taken for this purpose.

  Return of Accidents in Mines.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the official Returns of accidents in mines do not include accidents for which compensation is paid by the employers; and whether he will direct for the future that all accidents in mines where the owner has to pay compensation shall be reported to His Majesty's inspectors, and such accidents be duly given in the official Returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Whether or no an accident must be reported depends on the extent and nature of the injury sustained, and not on the payment of compensation. I have no power under the Mines Acts to direct that accidents in respect of which compensation is paid shall be separately reported by the owners, but I am proposing in the Accidents (Mines and Factories) Bill, which is now before the House, to
  1052
  provide for a yearly Return being made by mineowners of all accidents which disable for a period of more that a fortnight. This Return will show approximately the number of accidents in which compensation is payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

  Revenue Officials and Estate Duty.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the officials of the Estate Duty Office have any authority to add to, alter, or expand the terms, or any statutory definition of the terms, of a taxing statute, or to construe such a statute otherwise than in strict accordance with the language used; whether he will explain why, in a recent case to which his attention has been called, these officials, for the purpose of levying additional succession duty, claimed the right to give to Section 21 (1) of 51 Vic., c. 8, a meaning of their own, by substituting for a definition in that section part of the description of a different subject-matter; and will he state why they refused to inform the taxpayer concerned what there was in the language of the section as it stood that justified their demand for this additional succession duty, or authorised such a method of interpretation; and whether he has sanctioned the action of these revenue officials.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is the duty of the Estate Duty Office, as of every Government Department, to administer the law as laid down in the statutes, and as interpreted by the Courts in those cases in which the language of a statute admits of doubt. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, I have already informed the gentleman concerned in it that I must decline to review the decision of the Department, and that I have satisfied myself that proper care and attention have been given to the case. If the gentleman is not satisfied, he should make his appeal to the Courts in the proper way. The Inland Revenue Board will be prepared to defend their action.

  Manual Instructresses qualified as Assistant Mistresses in Irish Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he can

  1053
  state what is the number of manual instructresses employed in Irish national schools who are qualified to act as assistant mistresses; and whether, considering the qualifications of such teachers, he will suggest to the National Commissioners of Education the advisability of awarding them a higher rate of salary than that of an ordinary manual instructress.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Eighty-three. The duties of manual instructresses are confined mainly to the lower standards in small schools having mixed attendances of boys and girls under masters, where the attendance is not sufficient to warrant the recognition of an assistant teacher. They all perform similar duties, and their remuneration compares favourably with that formerly given to workmistresses. There are no sufficient grounds for awarding different scales of remuneration as suggested.

  Irish Teachers in Receipt of Pensions.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he can state the number of male and female teachers respectively at present in receipt of full pensions, the number in receipt of disablement pensions, also the highest amount payable as such.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The number of male and female teachers respectively at present in receipt of full pensions is—Males, 424; females, 395; total 819; disablement pensions—males, 24; females, 23; total, 47. The highest disablement pensions payable are—male, £14 4s. per annum; female, £14 7s. per annum.

  London Recruiting Barracks.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the result of the negotiations he stated, in reply to a Question in July last, were in progress as to the removal of the London recruiting from St. George's Barracks; whether any site has been purchased; if so, where; and when the building of the new recruiting barrack will be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The site, for which negotia-
  1054
  tions were in progress, proved too expensive to purchase. The whole question is, therefore, still under consideration.

  Government Assistance to Rifle Clubs.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON; To ask the Secretary of State for War if any assistance will be given to rifle clubs during the current year; and, if no financial assistance can be given, whether the use of Government ranges, when not otherwise required, will be granted without charge and free of rent to such clubs, provided that all expenses for markers and watchers are paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is not possible to give any financial assistance to rifle clubs during the current year. The control of the Government ranges rests in the hands of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, who will doubtless render any assistance that they can to such clubs.

  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  [SECOND READING]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time, he felt the great difficulty in which a layman was placed in dealing with an extremely complicated question. He had devoted some time to find his way through the maze of legal decisions upon the points concerned in this Bill, and he found them very confusing. Even when he applied to some of the most learned lawyers in this House they had indicated to him that they were in almost as much confusion as himself, and they could not tell what the law really was. He was also free to admit that some of the proposals put forward in this Bill, when read for the first time by anyone who was not a lawyer and had not a very clear conception of the law of conspiracy, might look a little startling. As one without direct interest either as workman or employer he had endeavoured to look at this question impartially, and he had concluded that

  1055
  this Bill was one which he could recommend the House to accept.
  He would first deal with the confusion existing in the state of the law and the diversity of the decisions, which he thought was a sound reason why something should be done to make the law clear. There was not only great diversity of opinion, but the confusion had been emphasised on fundamental points by decisions within the last few years, and those decisions when given had been given by seriously divided Courts. In one of the most important decisions there was an important minority amongst the Law Lords, and six of the Judges who were called in to advise with them differed from the decision which was ultimately arrived at. The result had been that when a decision had been given, afterwards it had been whittled away and further modified and guarded until it became difficult to understand. It was generally agreed that a bad motive could not make a lawful act illegal, but there was considerable difference in the judicial opinion upon that point. The law in cases of combination was not at all clear. Lord Bowen laid down that trade competition was recognised as an excuse for injurious interference with another trade by combined action, but Lord Herschell indicated in the case of "Allen v. Flood" that that was not the basis of the decision of the other Judges. This was already confusing and difficult. In "Lyons v. Wilkins" the trades union called out men who were working for a man named Schoenthal who was supplying material and goods to Lyons. They called out those men to assist them in their dispute with Lyons. That was declared to be illegal, and an injunction was granted against them. When they came to the question of traders in the great Mogul case it had been decided that it was quite legal for the great shipowners in their combination to coerce and compel the shipping agents in China so that they should not take freights for other shipowners. They were at liberty to coerce a third party to compel a second party to give them their freights. There was also the more recent case in Scotland, where the Glasgow fleshers had refused to do business with the salesmen if they supplied the co-operative stores. In order to drive the stores out of their
  1056
  particular business they brought pressure to bear by refusing to trade with them. It seemed to him that there was a great discrepancy in the law as it bore upon workmen on the one hand and traders on the other, because in one case they were allowed to bring pressure upon a third party, but in the other they were not. He wished to know, was it legal or not to induce the workmen of another employer to strike? Was the question of motive to be gone into? He found it difficult to follow the variations of meaning put uponsuch words as "motive," "object," and "purpose." An ordinary man was lost in the various meanings attributed to these words. It was rather important that as far as possible the law should be "understanded" by the plain man in the street and not only by the lawyers. An important point was whether it was legal for one man to persuade others to strike, and, if so, was it legal for two or three men to combine and persuade some other men to strike. In the decision given by Lord Davey in "Allen v. Flood," Lord Davey said—
  "An employer may discharge a workman (with whom he has no contract), or may refuse to employ one from the most mistaken, capricious, malicious, or morally reprehensible motives that can be conceived; but the workman has no right of action against him. It seems to me strange to say that the principal who does the act is under no liability, but the accessory who has advised him to do so, without any wrongful act, is under liability. To persuade a person to do or abstain from doing what that person is entitled at his own will to do or abstain from doing is lawful, and in some cases meritorious, although the result of the advice may be damage to another. This is not a case of conspiracy. I do not say whether, if it were, it would or would not make an essential difference."
  A single individual might persuade men to withdraw from their employment, but Lord Davey thought it was doubtful, and he did not say whether it would be legal, for a trades union to persuade men to withdraw from their employment. These questions were vitally important, for they affected hundreds of thousands of men in this country in a most important matter affecting their every day life, namely, their wages, hours, and conditions of labour. It was, therefore, vital, as affecting one of their most important relations of life. Upon such a question the

  1057
  law should be clear, and it should not depend upon subtle distinctions and difficult interpretations of various words. Even learned lawyers could not say what the law was, and they could not tell trade unionists what they could or could not legally do under certain conditions. In these circumstances how could they expect unlearned working men to find their way through this maze of legal confusion, and yet they were bound by those laws and rendered liable for not obeying them. It was not fair, and it was not reasonable to ask the working men of this country to walk over this road which abounded in serious legal pitfalls.
  His next point was that so far as the law had been clearly denned it was not what it was intended to be. He was aware that this question had been submitted to the Courts of law, and Courts of law had nothing to do with what was said in this House, although they had to decide upon the law as it now stood. He would deal for a moment with the decisions which had been given as to the legal interpretation of the law. His point was that the law as interpreted had been declared to be a different law from what it was intended to be. He should like to allude to what Lord Cairns said in the year 1875, when he introduced the Bill dealing with this subject. Everyone would admit that he was one of the greatest lawyers that this country had had during the last century. He read Mr. Russell Gurney's charge and he said that this Bill was intended to make the law as set out in Mr. Russell Gurney's charge. That was the intention of the Act as declared by this great lawyer. Lord Cairns said on the July 26th, 1875—
  "The 6th George IV., the Act of 1826, abolished the Combination Laws, and made violence to person or property, or threats, or intimidation, or molestation, or obstruction with a view to interfere with masters or servants, a criminal offence. The first impression was that these forbidden acts were physical and mechanical acts, but by construction they were held to include the act of persuading in a peaceable manner. Accordingly, in order to meet this objection the 22nd Victoria was passed, which provided that an endeavour to persuade in a peaceable manner should not be deemed molestation or obstruction."
  They did, then, deliberately, in the 22nd year of the late Queen, by Act of Parliament, what by this Bill we ask you to
  1058
  declare is law to-day. Lord cairns went on—
  "Still doubts arose upon the construction of the Act, and then came the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, which repealed both the previous enactments, and substituted other acts as criminal offences. Great dissatisfaction, however, was felt with the working of the Act of 1871, because the decisions upon it were not altogether uniform."
  The same old story
  "The Recorder's charge in what was known as the "Cabinetmakers'" case embodied the law upon the subject. In the course of his charge the learned Recorder said"
  —Lord Cairns quotes from Mr. Russell Gurney's charge—
  "'The question you will have to ask yourselves is whether the evidence shows that the defendants were guilty of obstructing and rendering difficult of access, the prosecutor's place of business, or whether anything which they did was calculated to deter or intimidate those who were passing to and fro, or whether there was an exhibition of force calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men, or whether the defendants or any of them combined for that purpose. If you think that, it seems to me, then it will be your duty to find a true bill; but if you think their conduct may be accounted for by a desire to ascertain who were the persons working there, or peaceably to persuade them or any others who were proposing to work there to join their fellow workmen, who were contending, whether rightly or wrongly, for the interests of the general body, it seems to me that there is no evidence sufficient to establish the charge that is here made.'"
  There Mr. Russell Gurney clearly lays down that peaceable persuasion was legal and Lord Cairns is quoting that. Lord Cairns goes on—
  "This expression of the law in the Recorder's charge appeared to the Home Secretary to be exactly the intention and scope of the Act of 1871, and, so far as he was concerned his right hon. friend would have been content to trust that application of the Act in future cases. The working men, too, would, he believed, have been satisfied with that construction of the Act. The House of Commons thought, however, that it was not desirable to leave the question open to any doubt whatever, and words were accordingly introduced into the present Bill in order that future rulings in similar cases should be placed on the same footing as the case tried by the Recorder. After anxious consideration, and with valuable assistance in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary had endeavoured to frame a clause which should free the matter from future doubt."
  That was the intention of that Act, and it was intended specially to make it perfectly clear that peaceful persuasion was

  1059
  perfectly legal. The Home Secretary of that day, Mr. Cross had Mr. Russell Gurney's charge specially printed and sent round to the magistrates in order that they might know what the Government interpretation of the Act was. There they had a clear proof that the recent decisions which declared peaceful persuasion to be illegal were contrary to the distinct intentions when the Act passed this House. He knew this was not an argument for the law courts, but it was an argument for Parliament, more especially when the law had been administered for thirty years without any inconvenience to the people of this country.
  As to the liability of trades union funds it was also thought to be clear in the Act. He thought no one would dispute the soundness of the legal decisions which had been given. His point was that great lawyers thought that was the law, and right up to the last everybody acted upon it as if it was the law. In that great case the Court of Appeal decided that it was the law. It was only when it got to the House of Lords that the new version was put on it. The first clause of the Bill was simply for the purpose of definitely legalising that persuasion which it was the object of the Act of 1875 to make perfectly clear, and he submitted that peaceful persuasion was proper, harmless, and absolutely necessary if trades unions were to have any reasonable and useful existence. The law provided for trades unionists attending in the vicinity of works, or homes, or anywhere that might be necessary, in order to obtain and convey information. It was thought that that covered peaceful persuasion. Lord Cairns thought it did. It was monstrous not to permit trades unionists to attend and persuade peacefully their fellow-workmen not to enter into competition with them when they had disputes with their employers. He knew it was said that was allowable now, and that it was unnecessary to enact this. There had been a question as to whether it was allowable, but if it was allowable now there could not be any harm in making it perfectly clear. With all deference he ventured to submit that it was not legal now, and he would ask this question—Would attending in the same way near the home
  1060
  or near the works to obtain and convey information be legal if it was not specially provided for in the Act of 1875? If it would, why was it provided for? If it would not, then to attend for the purpose of legal persuasion was illegal because it was not provided for. He went further. In the case of "Lyons v. Wilkins" the Court of Appeal, in 1896, confirmed an injunction restraining trades union officials—
  "From watching or besetting the plaintiff's works for the purpose of persuading or otherwise preventing persons from working for them, or for any purpose except merely to obtain or communicate information."
  Lord Justice Kay said—
  "I hold distinctly that it is illegal to picket the works or place of business of a man by persons who are distributed there for the purpose of trying by persuasion to induce the workmen not to work for him any longer, or to induce people who want to work for him to abstain from entering into an agreement with him to do so."
  Lord Justice of Lindley said—
  "Now they were not there merely to obtain or communicate information; that is not their function. They were there to put pressure on Messrs. Lyons by persuading people not to enter their employment, and that is watching and besetting within Clause 4; that is not attending merely to obtain or communicate information. Under these circumstances they have gone too far, and have gone beyond what the Act of Parliament authorises, and I do not hesitate to say that it is a case in which, from the necessity of the thing, a quick remedy is actually and absolutely required."
  In a circular which has been sent round by the Miners' Association it is stated that—
  "Under the existing law persons may be peacefully persuaded, provided the method employed does not constitute a nuisance to other people."
  That was not so. There was no nuisance whatever in the case of Lyons. It was admitted by the plaintiff, and taken as a fact by the Court, that the pickets used no violence, intimidation, or threats. There were only four persons engaged in that picket, there were never more than two of them at a time. They were there in relays of two. Could anything be more peaceful? They were there for the purpose of peacefully persuading others, and yet that was an evil for which Lord Lindley said that a quick remedy was actually and absolutely required. They could not have more

  1061
  peaceful persuasion than by two men attending to persuade without any threat or intimidation. It was very proper and reasonable conduct, but, unfortunately, it was illegal. There was another case— "Charnock v. Court "—in which Mr. Justice Stirling gave the decision. This was in connection with a strike at Halifax. Men were brought from Ireland to fill the places of the men who were striking. Two men went from Halifax to Fleet-wood to be on the landing stage when the vessel arrived bringing thirteen men from Ireland. These two men persuaded the thirteen men not to go to Halifax, and they paid their fares to go elsewhere. That was declared to be illegal. Could there be more peaceful persuasion than that by two men who had to go away 100 miles from the scene of the strike to a landing stage to persuade men not to work? And yet they were told that peaceful persuasion was not illegal. He was justified in saying that peaceful persuasion was not legal under the law. It would be illegal for one man to watch outside a house in order to persuade a man not to work, because that would be watching in the sense of the law. He was not allowed to watch unless it was simply to obtain or convey information. They were told that this clause would permit men to molest, terrorise, and intimidate, and that they should have a great crowd attending? Nothing of the kind. That was not the desire of the trades unionists of the country, and, if it was, it would not be legal. If a great crowd attended, watching and besetting a house without attempting to persuade, who could contend that they were trying to peacefully persuade. A large crowd could not contend that they were there for peaceful persuasion. Force, violence, and intimidation, following, were now and would be still illegal under the Act of 1875. They might say that peaceful persuasion might develop into terrorism and violence. Well, but they were not to punish a legal act because an illegal one might develop from it. Peaceful controversy between two individuals might develop into a fight, but they did not say that peaceful controversy should be illegal because somebody sometimes fought. They must deal with the fight and the illegality when it occurred, but they should
  1062
  not, deny men the power of peaceful argument and peaceful persuasion.
  Further, they had a little light thrown on what would be the effect of this. The House was aware that attending in order to convey and obtain information was legal. He would read a short extract from a decision by Lord Justice Lindley on that point. In the case of "Lyons v. Wilkins" he said—
  "It would be wrong to post people about a place of business or a house under pretence of merely obtaining or communicating information if the object and effect were to compel the person so picketed not to do that which he has a perfect right to do."
  Molesting, obstructing, threatening, and coercing were illegal, they should be illegal, and they would continue to be illegal, but argument and persuasion should not be made illegal. Persuasion was essential to the carrying on of a strike. This House long years ago decided, and decided wisely, that strikes must be legalised, and if strikes were to be legalised they must legalise the method by which they could be properly and peacefully carried on. Persuasion was absolutely essential to the carrying on of a strike. The strikers must wait about to catch the men and reason with those who were being brought in from distant places by the employers, and perfectly rightly by the employers. The employers were perfectly justified in scouring the country to get men to fill the places of the men on strike. That was perfectly legitimate, but he contended that it should be equally legitimate for the men without threat, violence, or intimidation to meet these men at the railway-station, in the street, or where-ever they could find them, argue with them, and persuade them not to go to take their places. That was absolutely essential if a strike was to be conducted. If it should be thought that more was required than was now in it, there was no objection to put in words to make the clause perfectly clear. Clause 2 reads as follows—
  "An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action, if such act, when committed by one person, would not be ground for an action."
  The wording of that followed very closely Clause 3 of the Act of 1875.

  1063
  That Act protected men in combination against criminal action if the act done would not be a criminal act when done by one person only. This clause was simply to carry that exemption into effect in civil proceedings. As the law now stood, trades unions were free from criminal proceedings when the act done by a trades union was an act which would not be criminal in the case of one person. This clause provided that they should be equally free from civil proceedings if the act done in union was one which would not involve a civil action if done by one man only. That would go far to equalise the position between traders and workman. A combination of traders for their own trade benefit, even if it meant the injury and crushing out of innocent competing traders, was legal under the law. Lord Justice Bowen put this very plainly in the Mogul case. He said—
  "The just excuse for inflicting ruin on the dissentient shipowners was that instinct of self-advancement and self-protection which was the incentive of all trade."
  Traders were justified under the law in inflicting ruin on others in competition with them, and yet working men were to be restrained far within these limits. Lord Morris put the position of the capitalist and the trader in the same case very strongly. He said—
  The object was a lawful one. It is not illegal action of a trader to aim at driving a competitor out of trade, provided the motive be his own gain by appropriation of the trade, and the means he uses be lawful weapons. … Again, what one trader may do in respect of competition a body or set of traders can lawfully do."
  That was what they asked in connection with the working men, that what one trader might do in respect of competition a body or set of men might lawfully do. That was, in promoting their own trade interest, they in combination should be permitted to do what it would be legal for one to do. What he asked—and he wished to be precise on this point—was that workmen in promoting their "trade" interest should be placed in the same position. On this point he would quote what Lord Justice Bowen had said in the Mogul case in 1883. Discussing whether a combination of capitalists differentiated the case of acts jointly done by them from similar acts done by a
  1064
  single man of capital his Lordship said—
  "I find it impossible myself to acquiesce in the view that the English law places any such restriction on the combination of capital as would be involved in the recognition of such a distinction. If so, one rich capitalist may innocently carry competition to a length which would become unlawful in the case of a syndicate with a joint capital no larger than his own, and one individual merchant may lawfully do that which a firm or a partnership may not. What limits, on such a theory, would be imposed by on the competitive action of a Joint Stock Company, Limited, is a problem which might well puzzle a casuist. The truth is, that the combination of capital for purposes of trade and competition is a very different thing from such a combination of several persons against one, with a view to harm him, as falls under the head of an indictable conspiracy."
  But a trade combination would not be a combination for the purpose of harming; the predominant motive was that it was to benefit themselves and to promote their own interests—
  "There is no just cause or excuse in the latter class of cases. There is such a just cause or excuse in the former. There are cases in which the very fact of a combination is evidence of a design to do that which is hurtful without just cause—is evidence—to use a technical expression—of malice. But it is perfectly legitimate, as it seems to me, to combine capital for all the mere purposes of trade for which capital may, apart from combination, be legitimately used in trade. To limit combinations of capital, when used for purposes of competition, in the manner proposed by the argument of the plaintiff, would, in the present day, be impossible—would be only another method of attempting to set boundaries to the tides."
  All that he asked was that trade unions should be placed in the same position as capitalists. So long ago as 1851, Mr. Justice Erle in "Reg. v. Rowlands," said that—
  "The intention of the law is at present to allow either of them to follow the dictates of their own will with respect to their own actions and their own property; and either, I believe, has a right to study to promote his own advantage, or to combine with others to promote their mutual advantage."
  Lord Justice Bowen quoted this case in support of his views as to the position of traders in the Mogul case. The present. Colonial Secretary, two years ago, said—
  "The law, in his opinion, operated harshly against trade unions."
  It was not clear that a labour dispute was a defence against civil actions for injury through a dispute because of combination. Although decisions were

  1065
  conflicting the balance of judgment appeared to be that combined action which intentionally injured another in his trade was illegal, unless just cause or excuse could be shown. Then it was sometimes said that if this clause was passed such conduct as everybody condemned, and which took place in the case of "Quinn v. Leathem," would be practically justified. He ventured to say that that was not so. That was a case of vindictive action, the sole object of which was to punish and injure Leathem. There was no trade dispute within the meaning of the Act of 1875. The trade dispute was all over, and the action then taken would not have been legalised under this clause. Lord Brampton made that perfectly clear in the case. His Lordship said—
  It could not be—it had not even been suggested—that these acts were done in furtherance of any of the lawful objects of the association as set forth in their registered rules, according to the statutory requirements, nor in support of any lawful right of the association, or any member of it, nor to obtain or maintain fair hours of labour or fair wages, nor to promote a fair understanding between employers and employed, and workman and workman."
  Such proceedings would still be actionable; and if any real doubt existed it could be made perfectly clear when the Bill was in Committee. Trade unions were combinations, and in the disputes which took place the working men could not act as individuals. They were bound to act in combination. It had to be decided in the public interest that men should be enabled to combine in their unions and strike; and if they were to do that effectually they must be relieved from the burden of the law, as it now pressed on them, in regard to combination and conspiracy. They must be relieved as the traders and capitalists were relieved, and so long as they did not do anything which would be illegal in the individual, it should be legal for them as a union to do. Personal liability, both civil and criminal, would remain untouched; and the proposed legislation would make workmen and employers equal in the same way as traders and capitalists were now equal.
  Clause 3 provided that trade union funds should not be liable to civil procedure; that was to say, that they could not be sued in consequence of the action
  1066
  of any of their members. It was never thought that they were liable till 1900. He would point out that that question had never been raised in the Courts for thirty years. Everybody believed that trade union funds were protected; that had never been doubted. Even the Appeal Court decided that they were not liable. It was only the House of Lords that had decided that they were. It did seem an anomaly that large corporations, having funds, should not be liable for anything that their representatives might do. But it must be remembered that, when dealing with trade unions, they were dealing with bodies which Parliament had, in 1871, deliberately and wisely placed in a special and anomalous position. Trade unions were not, under that Act, given the rights, privileges, and liabilities of corporate bodies. Trade unions could not be registered as companies, as benefit societies, or as industrial societies. It was believed for thirty years that they could not be sued, and for thirty years they were not sued. None of the terrible misfortunes which they were told would follow the passage of the Act of 1871 did follow during those thirty yeas. The arrangement worked well. It might not be logical, but the Lord Chancellor had recently declared that our laws were not logical. Many of them were, however, practical, and worked satisfactorily. If trade unions continued to be made liable, means of evasion would be discovered. But with what result? Trade unions would be weakened, control of the officials and of the executive would be weakened, and responsibility would be weakened; and that would be a Very undesirable thing for the nation as a whole. If this Bill were passed individuals would always remain liable. That would be a sufficient deterrent. Working men would think more of their own skins than of their trade union funds.
  Some people said: "Oh, we object to this special legislation to protect the interests of the working classes." He ventured to remind the House that in the past history of this country there had been a great deal of special legislation passed the other way. He called to mind the Statute of Limitations in the reign of Edward III.; the Statute of Apprentices in Elizabeth's

  1067
  time; the legislation of James I. for regulating strictly the conditions, wages, and hours of labour under which men should work, and compelling them to work for those who wanted them to work, not allowing them to move away where they wanted. There was a great deal of legislation in behalf of the employers, and some of it very stringent legislation. In 1800, and up to the year 1825, it was punishable by statute for workmen to combine in order to improve their wages and condition. And what was the result of that stringent legislation in the first quarter of last century? The relations between employers and workmen were more strained and difficult than ever they had been before or since, and there was violence and outrage. Wonderfully better conditions between employer and workmen had prevailed during the past thirty years, and that was mainly due to the position in which the trade unions had been put. Trade unions had been given greater power, and status, and responsibility; and they had risen to that responsibility. It had improved their position; but the recent decisions of the House of Lords had paralysed them. Employers might rejoice. It was, perhaps, natural that they should, when feeling ran high. He quite understood that employers should be very glad to have the power of the trade unions checked and limited; but he ventured to say that it would not be, in the long run, good for them or for the unions. Trade unions in this country had enormously improved the character, condition, and self-respect of the working men, and had given them an independent position; and it would be a calamity if that independence, which had been for the good of all, were seriously crippled.
  He, and those who supported this Bill, had no desire that there should be any facility given for terrorising or acting wrongfully. All that they wanted was that trade unionists should be able to exercise their ordinary civil rights. Nor was he there to defend everything done by trade unions and trade unionists. They might occasionally have acted wilfully, have, at times, been short-sighted and self-willed, and have acted somewhat tyrannously; but what of the employers? Was there any man in the House who would approve of everything they had done, or
  1068
  say that they had always acted wisely? Were they to indict a whole class simply because there had been weakness here, and shortcomings there? Employers were human; and trade unionists were human. Both had committed faults; but, on the whole, he ventured to say that the trade unions of this country had done remarkably well. And he thought that no greater testimony could be given to the wisdom of the legislation of the last half century than the men who sat in this House as distinctive labour representatives. He thought it would be admitted on all sides that there were no men in this House, of any class, who were more entitled to, and did not more receive, the respect of every Member of the House. Test them as they would: for character, ability, for general bearing in the House, they bore comparison with any section of the House. And these were the chosen representatives of those unions and of those classes in behalf of whom he appealed for this Bill. The policy of the past had been abundantly justified. It gave working men special facilities and freedom to work out their own interests and to defend their own position. We in this country were a law-abiding people; and there was more respect for law and constitutional authority among the masses of the people than was to be found in any other nation on the face of the earth. He ventured to say that that was because they had more freedom. The effect of the recent decision would do harm, and it might even beget danger. Thirty years ago trade unions were brought out into the light of day. He remembered one of the first great Blue-books he read was the Report of the Commission in 1857 on the outbreaks at Sheffield and elsewhere. The result was not to bring more oppressive legislation to bear on the trade unions but to free them, bring them out into the light of day, and to trust their leaders. Nothing could be more satisfactory or beneficial. The trade unions had justified the confidence reposed in them. Let that confidence be restored. Let the law be restored to the position in which it stood before; at the same time, put down ever and with a stern hand molestation, threats, and intimidation, but give the men every

  1069
  facility to promote their own interests peacefully and properly, and, thereby, remove all temptation to resort to objectionable practices. He begged to move.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he desired to thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of himself and his colleagues for the very high, perhaps the too high, tribute for their deserts which he had paid to the Labour Members. He thought, however, that he might fairly say that they had always tried to comport themselves in the past in a respectful and honourable manner. He also wished to express the pleasure with which he had listened to the very able speech of the hon. Gentleman and to thank him for the very clear and convincing manner in which he had brought the question before the House. He thought the speech was listened to with pleasure by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and he desired to thank the hon. Gentleman in the names of the trade unions of the country for his action. So great was the interest taken in this Bill that there were at the present moment within the precincts of the House fully 200 of the leading men of the trade unions of the country, so valuable did they regard it. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for his defence of trade unions and for the manly way in which, in his beautiful peroration, he showed that instead of being instruments of evil and institutions of wrong, as men would make them out to be, they were one of the largest elements in the welfare and progress of this country that had been in operation during the last thirty years.
  It would be a piece of conceit on his part if he said that he would discuss this question from the lawyer's point of view. He did not approach it as a lawyer, and he would be candid and say that he did not approach it as a trade unionist; he approached it as a citizen of a great and industrial country, and he believed that unless there was some remedy, some definition given to the position in which they found themselves, that, instead of peaceful accord, compromise, and growing conciliation, he was very much afraid that there would be a repetition, or at least an approach to the state of things which existed thirty years
  1070
  ago. At present the question was in the clouds; it was in a kind of chaos; and they were asking where they were. The Home Secretary himself acknowledged that there was very great unrest in the country, and that that unrest should be allayed. The right hon. Gentleman said that some steps should be taken, but he guarded himself by adding that those steps should not be taken until after the Commission had reported. The programme of the Government, however, was not as heroic as in previous sessions; they were now thinking nationally and not Imperially; and it would have been better if they had inserted in their programme a Bill to remedy the grievances of trade unionists and to define the law regarding them. They had had two or three stages in connection with the measure. Last session the Government removed their embargo; he did not say it was an open and avowed embargo, but it was a tacit embargo. The House was given a freer hand, and there was a sudden rebound in the voting; a minority of thirty being converted into a majority of thirty-nine. The question was so important that he did not think it was necessary to wait for the Report of the Commission; especially when they remembered that the Commission was one-sided. If it were a Commission to inquire into the relations between employer and employee why were the most important interests in the country unrepresented? Why was there not on the Commission a representative of the principal trade unions. He had read of a Commission very much like this. It was described in Washington Irving's Knickerbocker's History of New York. He said that the reason why, and the cause of, the crooked streets in New York was because the matter was referred to a Commission of Dutchmen, and while they were deliberating on the construction of the city the cows made tracks down to the river and the squatters built their houses before the Commission reported. He thought the present Commission instead of expediting, would delay the business they had in hand; and therefore the Government would do well to include this measure in their sessional programme, He said with all due deference that it would have been better if, instead of

  1071
  including Chinese labour last year, they had dealt with the trade union question.
  The position he laid down was that the trade unions of this country were a large element in its commercial progress and stability. All they required was concord, compromise, and conciliation, and it should be the aim of all parties to try and establish and enlarge, as far as they could, that feeling and that spirit. From the national point of view, he thought the Government would do well to assist this Bill through the House in order that it might pass into law this session, and that they might know exactly were they stood. It was not necessary to dilate on the views of trade unionists after the full statement of the hon. Gentleman, but his experience went back prior to 1871. He was a trade unionist at the time the Sheffield Commission met, he had seen men called out of their beds at night, manacled and sent to prison, because they asserted the highest duty and the greatest privilege of human life, namely, endeavouring to get the best price for their labour it was possible to get. If the House wanted to get any worse character of him than it had, he might state that he led a strike when he was fifteen years of age; now he was not only entering on the sere and yellow but the sedate period of life and took a calmer view of the position of affairs. All the trade unions wanted prior to 1875 was protection for their funds, the settlement of internal disputes without resorting to law, immunity from collective liability, and the repeal of all criminal legislation applied to working men as such. He preferred the bold attitude of the hon. Gentleman who intended to move the rejection of the Bill to the policy of evasion which would defer the matter until the Commission had reported. He always preferred a frank opponent; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to dwell upon future forebodings or fears, but to state, in his experience of thirty years, any instances in which he could complain of the action of trade unions. He thought he might safely say that his colleagues and himself on many occasions were credited with a double portion of original sin. During the last thirty years—since 1875—he would venture to say, through acting
  1072
  on the advice and desires of trades union leaders, there had been a gradual coming together of the employers and employed. There had been introduced into their relations the gradual use of conciliation.
  Immediately the Act of 1875 was passed the managing committee of the Durham Miners' Organisation, of which he was a member, sought to establish a sliding scale for the peaceful regulation of their labour. But they were not alone in that, on every hand responsible trades union leaders sought to arrange something whereby the relations between their unions and the employers might be settled without resorts to force or law, or in any way beyond conciliation. The progress which conciliation had made was shown by the fact that in 1898 there were 16,000 people whose relations with their employers had been regulated by conciliation, and in 1901 that number had increased to 570,000. He appealed to any employer in this House to say whether conciliation had not put money in his pocket. He put it, on the low level of money, whether conciliation had not obviated strikes many a time, and whether it was wise on the part of employers to risk the hindrance and the retarding of the growth of that spirit. Were he an employer he would foster it by every means in his power, because trust begat trust and force evoked force, and if men could not defend themselves in the light of day they would defend themselves in the darkness. Let him put the matter in another way. From the complaints and forebodings they had heard, they might believe that every day riot ran rampant through their ranks and the field of commerce, but he ventured to say there was no country on the face of this earth where there was less disturbance than in this country. Without going into the definition of words, and without saying that the employers had all the virtues and the men all the vices of human life, let them say that each had a share of both. He was not going to say that the employers with whom he had to do were anything more or anything less than men. Let the employers say the same of them. The importance of this question demanded its settlement. It was not a Party question and it ought not to be. There were questions about which Parties

  1073
  might conflict, but this question lay at the root of the industrial stability of this country. We came nearer to the Continent every day by transit, and competition with foreign countries. Could anyone think for a moment that by depleting the funds of the trade unions they would destroy strikes? He had seen more deplorable strikes in cases where there was not a penny in the fund than where the organisations concerned had a large fund. It was suggested that where the men had a large fund they guarded it, and were chary of engaging in any action which might jeopardise it. Let not employers run away with the idea that lack of money would prevent strikes. If men felt aggrieved, though they had not a cent, they would resent it and fight. Let them not think they would prevent a strike by depleting a union of its funds.
  Let them look at this question from the broad position of the national view. From that point of view the sooner a decision was given the better, and the sooner the Government took the matter in hand the better for all concerned. He was about to give a few quotations as to the haziness of this question, and he recollected reading somewhere that "out of the eater cometh meat," and they sometimes got sweetness from their enemies. The hon. Member for Stretford had stated on a previous occasion that they were in a precarious position in regard to this matter, and that the sooner it was settled the better. The hon. Member said—
  "Too much at the present time was left with the Judge and too little definition laid down by the Legislature to enable him to deal with a very difficult subject matter."
  He agreed they ought not to have Judge-made law upon a question of this sort. They should have rules and regulations laid down by Parliament. He now desired to point an argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary very much, but really the right hon. Gentleman's argument was the reductio ad absurdum. It was that if this Bill was passed it would be competent for a man to come to his knocker and go away, and another
  1074
  man to come to his knocker, and forty or fifty men to come to his knocker, until it would become a nuisance. He submitted that a question of this kind should not be dealt with that way. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman used was that it was bestowing a privilege on a particular class. It was bestowing no privilege whatever. All they asked for was the liberty to use their power to persuade. In human life that was one of its perquisites; if you took out of it the power of persuasion human life would be barren; both Parties tried it at election times on the platforms of the country, they tried to persuade. They had all tried it on their sweethearts, why should not the trade unionist try it upon his fellow-workman. How would this appear to the simple minded workman who saw his employer bringing workmen from other places, not because of the love his employer had man from bettering his condition, either by obtaining shorter hours or higher wages. If he attempted to persuade those men to go away he immediately found that he was, if not a criminal, amenable to the law of the land. He would say to himself that "this is a strange thing that my employer can do that which I may not do." That was a simple statement of the fact, but it was the true one.
  He had heard it stated—he hoped it was not true—that the employers of the country had thrown the burden of circularising on this question upon the mineowners of the North. He hoped it was not true, but it was a strange coincidence that they had not received any circulars from any other associations. That being so, they might assume that the statement was correct. He therefore appealed to the coalowners in this House to give some instances of some serious cases that had happened in the last few years in justification of the statements they had made. He was sorry to see the organisation of the employers of the North lending themselves to these fears and forebodings. He had a circular sent to him by an association, with which he as the corresponding secretary for the Miners had a deal to do so far as Durham was concerned, and he ventured to say that there

  1075
  was not a single phase of their relations that was not covered by conciliation. If he went to compel any man then let them make him liable for his act, but if he went to persuade let them not restrict his God-given privilege to speak; as he had a right to speak in a straightforward way. As things stood now the workmen were in a position of inequality, all they asked for was justice. Anything that depleted the union funds was of course to the benefit of the employers, and naturally they supported the opposition to this Bill. Now all he said was "Give us fair play." He would concede this, if a committee or an organisation deputed any man whatever to do that which might be wrong he had no objection to it being made liable, because it was the union itself which was doing it. But if he went to a place where there was a strike without the sanction of the committee, and urged the men to do that which was wrong he ought to be punished, and the funds ought not to be mulcted. The day had come when they should drop all reference to the Taff Vale and other cases. Let the dead past bury its dead. Let them start anew. Let them have a law fair, honourable, and just to every man. He did not want to repel the two interests in the commercial world; he wanted amicability and concord to be centripetal forces, and as he believed this Bill contained the principle of binding force he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for its Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSONsaid he would not like the impression to get abroad that he was moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months in any spirit of hostility towards trade unionism. The last speaker challenged him, as a large employer of labour in the North of England, to state his view with regard to the work of trade unions in that part of the country, and he had great pleasure in telling him that the action of these unions there had been extremely beneficial. No doubt both for employers and employed it was of enormous advantage that they should have an
  1076
  organisation to deal with. When employers had to meet a large number of workmen it was extremely difficult to arrive at their real views, and, therefore, it was most desirable that there should be some recognised union which gathered up the different threads and which was accepted by the workmen as authorised to present their views. He quite concurred with both the mover and seconder that there was a very great advantage in the existence of strong trade unions. He qualified the sentence by the use of the word "strong," because there was a very great difference indeed between strong and weak unions. They had had the benefit of strong unions in the North of England, and he could not too much exaggerate the result of that benefit; they had had very few strikes in Northumberland and Durham. He had been in business for a great portion of his life in that part of the country and he was consequently perfectly familiar with the conditions of industry there, and he was glad to know that they had in that House men from that district who enjoyed the respect of Members on both sides as well as the confidence of their; constituents in the North. He marvelled, however, that the strong unions should throw in their lot with the weaker unions in asking for such an enormous concession as was embodied in that Bill. He could not say that he approved of the Bill under any circumstances, even if it was to be administered only by those who were connected with strong unions, but he did oppose any legislation of that kind, considering the difficulties associated with the whole legal aspect of the question, and he did think it would be a great mistake to apply any such principles to the industrial interests of this country.
  He did not propose to go into the legal question, for he was to be followed by a very sound lawyer who would be better able to deal with that matter. He would simply remark that there had been very great confusion caused by the decisions recently given as to what could and could not be done in trade disputes. The whole question was in an unsettled condition, and that, no doubt, was an unfortunate state of things. The sooner it was remedied the better. But they were discussing on that occasion, not so much the remedy as the procedure for

  1077
  securing that remedy, and that was where the great difference came in between his views and those entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite. What had in the past been believed to be the law as to the liability of trade unions had been utterly upset by recent decisions given in the law Courts. Was the House of Commons a tribunal likely to settle a question of that kind? He said distinctly that it was not. [A Voice: What are we here for?] They were not there to deal with legal questions, to do that they must have a direct leading of some sort. A Royal Commission was appointed some time since to deal with the question, and some criticisms had been offered because no member of the Labour Party had been placed upon it. But he understood that a certain gentleman was put on it because he was known to take a very deep interest in labour matters and to enjoy the confidence of the Labour Party. [Cries of "No."] At any rate, he understood that that was the idea in selecting that gentleman; he was also told that the labour leaders were invited to give evidence before the Commission and, unfortunately, refused to do so. He held that in the darkness with which they were surrounded in connection with the legal aspects of the question they would not be justified in attempting to pass a Bill of that kind without the light which they might expect to receive from the investigations conducted by the Royal Commission. That was the principal ground upon which he opposed the Motion for the Second Reading of that Bill. If only they could have introduced legislation on lines recommended by the Royal Commission and embodying probably the views of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House there could be no doubt that that would be the best method of procedure, in view of the fact that they were so much hampered by the obscurity created by recent legal decisions. Last year they had a distinct pronouncement from the Prime Minister, who declared tint in passing a Bill of that kind they had not to consider in the first place the interests of employers or workmen or the merits or demerits of trades unionism, but rather the interests of society as a whole, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested to the House that, in the absence of such assistance as might be
  1078
  derived from the Royal Commission, it was inadvisable to attempt to pass legislation of the nature proposed. The situation had not been altered since the Prime Minister uttered those words; it was practically the same to-day as a year ago.
  He would like to say a few words with regard to the present powers possessed by trade unions. In this Bill they were asking for a great extension of their powers. But what were their present powers, and how did they compare with the position occupied by employers of labour. They must remember that the employer of labour had to invest his capital in plant at a certain spot, and it was of great importance to him that his trade should be carried on there, whereas the individual workman could take away his labour, which, after all, was his capital, to some other part of the world at any moment he chose. He was not, in fact, hampered by the same considerations of fixity of capital. Employers of labour, in order to carry on their business, were also compelled to make contracts, and they therefore ran the risk that the men they employed might at any time demand a higher wage than was provided for in the estimate for the work. All these things ought to be considered. The workmen had a great deal of power as compared with employers. Let them go back to the origin of trade unions. Their first function was simply to watch the interests of labour with regard to wages, but they had now gone a good deal beyond that; they dictated terms of employment, and even the number of apprentices; they dictated the amount of work to be done by either man or machine, and they also dealt with questions of overtime and piecework, and the discharge of non-union men. The question was whether in the general interests of the commerce and trade of this country it was wise to give such an increase of power as this Bill proposed. There was no doubt, after the condition which had been created as to the want of exactness in the law, that some change would have to be made, but everything pointed to the undesirability of hasty legislation. If such a measure as this were passed, it would probably be found when the Report of the Royal Commission was published that they had

  1079
  passed a Bill of a character entirely different from the recommendations of that Commission, and which would not commend itself to the approval of the country. The powers of trade unions had a very important bearing upon the cost of the production of the employees. They tended to the restriction of the labour of the individual, and, consequently, to increase of cost. That was very important from the point of view of the interests and progress of employment in this country. Strong unions and weak unions were necessarily bracketed together, but legislation which in the hands of a strong union was harmless might, in the hands of a weak union, led by weak men, result in great harm being done. This country had never had freedom of trade in the fiscal sense; he hoped they might, at all events, have freedom in labour, and that masters and men might determine between themselves their rates of wages without the interference of a weak union.
  It was said that the unions were too high-minded to begin the practice of picketing. It was all very well to make such professions, but a circular had been sent by one of the trade unions telling Members that their votes would be watched and their names sent to all the trade unions in the country. What was that but picketing? And the unions had commenced it very early by attempting the coercive or "peaceable persuasion" of Members of Parliament. He was sorry to oppose a measure brought in by trade unions, which he did not hesitate to acknowledge had done him so much good in the past. As an employer of labour he had had little trouble with strikes, having always been able to arrange matters with his men. Therefore, he had no feeling whatever against trade unions, but he did implore them to move slowly in this matter, and not to press forward a Bill which would never receive the sympathy and assent of the country. He suggested that action should be deferred until they had the information to be supplied by the Royal Commission, which would enable them to deal with the matter in a proper way. Many Members who were going to vote for the Bill had told him they did not believe in it. They were being driven by the circular, which practically threatened to knock them out
  1080
  of the House of Commons at the next election if they voted against the Bill. He did not intend to give way to any such pressure. He had stated his reasons for opposing the Bill. Honestly desiring the law to be brought into the shape most suited to the requirements of the trade of the country, he was in favour of some change, but he did not think it ought to be in the direction of giving such enormously increased powers to trade unions. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  *MR. DUKE, in seconding the Amendment, said that if he could have reconciled his view of what he ought to do with not voting against the Second Reading of this Bill he would gladly have done so, not because of the "peaceable persuasion" to which reference had been made, but solely with a view to the public interests involved in the Bill and, not least among them, the great interest of the country as a whole in the strength and effectiveness of trade unions. He did not object at all to "peaceable persuasion" of Members of Parliament; every man interested had a right to tell hon. Members that their working-class constituents or any other body of their constituents would watch their votes. But before any such persuasion was applied he had had to consider this Bill, and had told the Trades Council in his own constituency that the Bill proceeded on lines which were absolutely inadmissible and did not afford a means of settlement of this question. He fully recognised that there was a large section of the working classes which desired this Bill to pass. That was a factor to be considered, but it was not the governing factor. The House of Commons had to consider whether the Bill was one which ought to pass, whether it was a good or a bad Bill, and he had come to the conclusion that it was a bad Bill, which could not be satisfactorily amended in Committee, and which, therefore, he ought to oppose on Second Reading.
  It had been said that there was great confusion in this branch of law. He thought, however, that there was not more confusion in this than in some

  1081
  other of the higher ranges of legal discussion. There were ranges of law in which every question was a contentious question. No human ingenuity could settle the law of a country so that there should be no contentious questions. Personally, he did not believe that on the great principles of the law relating to trade unions there was the perplexity which had been referred to. There was doubtless a variety of views among eminent lawyers on questions not immediately raised by the statutes relating to trade unions, but which came in collaterally, and which had had the effect of procuring apparently divergent decisions upon sets of facts closely resembling one another. He agreed as to the desirability of having a code of trade union law. Criminal law and the law relating to Bills of Exchange had been codified, but neither came nearly so close to the daily life of great masses of the people as the law with regard to combination and the law which governed employers and employed in their mutual relations. This Bill did not profess to codify the law. It introduced privileges for one of the strongest bodies, if not the strongest organised body, in the country, and the question the House had to consider was whether it was proper that organisations guided by men of ability such as was shown in this House by the Labour Members, possessing millions of members, millions of annual revenue, and millions of invested funds, should be placed in a position of privilege by a decision of this House. The Bill not only gave exceptional privileges: it gave them to one of the most strongly organised bodies in the country.
  It was because this Bill made that proposal that he could not vote for it. It was said that the Taff Vale case was a great disappointment. He did not think it surprised many lawyers except on the question of procedure. If a number of persons combined to cause damage to others the law declared that the whole of those persons and their funds would be held liable. When it was said there was disappointment, he would invite attention to both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission of 1869. Both Reports stated, with regard to the Bill then proposed,
  1082
  that it ought not to affect the liability of every person to be sued in respect of any damage or loss which might have been occasioned to any other person through any act or default of the person sued. That was a very clear enunciation of the principle which must underlie the law of every civilised country. If, contrary to the law, a man or a body of men caused damage to others, then to the extent of their means they must pay for it. To provide by legislation that the trade unions of this country should be put outside the operation of that principle, which was at the foundation of all civilised law, was a denial in respect of trade unionists of an elementary duty of citizenship. But he did not admit that there was this disappointment that had been spoken of. What was felt with regard to trade unions in the period before 1900 was rather that they were fortunate in being protected from legal procedure by difficulties which spring from the law as to procedure in civil actions where an uncertain body were the defendants, but there was no law which forbade their liability if their funds could be reached. Another ground of complaint was set forth in a circular which the organised textile workers had sent to hon. Members. It was argued that the law affected masters and workmen unequally, that masters might close their works in order to influence disputes in other works, that they might black-list workmen and ruin them. [An HON MEMBER: But they do.] Perhaps so, but did the hon. Member think they ought? He did not think so, and therefore he could not assent to a Bill the second section of which would authorise the very thing which the textile workers resented, and which hon. Members opposite agreed was abominable and wicked. The hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Clitheroe appeared to think that blacklisting was indulged in, but he should like to hear of a case.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he remembered a case where three directors were brought to the Bar of the House for intimidating a witness, and they were reprimanded by the predecessor of the present Speaker. That was a concrete case.
  *MR. DUKEsaid he regretted that the House had not a convenient prison for such persons. He agreed that such things should not be done, but he would point out that the second section of the Bill would authorise them. Hon. Members opposite contended that masters and men should be placed on an equal footing. Were the workers to be authorised to do wicked things because it was said that some employers did them? He would rather bring them both into a proper state of subordination to the law. If it were the fact that masters combined to damage workmen, such combination was as obnoxious to the principle laid down in "Quinn v. Leathem" as any of the acts reprehended in the judgment in that case. Let hon. Members consider the effect of the successive clauses in this Bill, and the object of them. The first clause of the Bill would override the principle laid down in "Lyons v. Wilkins," the second clause would override that laid down in "Quinn v. Leathem," and the third clause that in the Taff Vale case. "Lyons v. Wilkins' laid down the principle that an arbitrary power might not be assumed of closing a man's business because there was a trade dispute connected with his business. Many of them might say that when a man did what they disapproved that man's business ought to be stopped, and might withhold their custom and tell their friends of the fact, but to put in the hands of organised powers like the trades unions the authority at their will to stop the business of a malcontent employer would be to place the trades unions in a state of sovereignty which no king had ever enjoyed with the consent of the English people. [An HON. MEMBER: The employers enjoy it.] Even if his seat in the House depended upon it, he would never allow anybody except the Legislature to close a man's business or prevent him from following his calling because in some dispute about methods of business or rules of labour they thought that man was wrong.
  When picketing was spoken of by hon. Gentlemen and in the Bill as a right to attend for purposes of peaceable persuasion they used a mere form of words. The real question was whether it was to be in the power of a trade union to say to a malcontent workman, "You shall not
  1084
  work except upon our terms." All the talk about only two men attending at a time, or two men waiting on a pier for an Irish steamer, was beside the mark. He would remind hon. Members of Carlyle's example of the mode in which law operated. "The Judge says to a man, 'You shall be hanged.' He goes peacefully away and the executioner puts his hand upon him and he submits to death." That was because law prevailed. It was because of the wish that the edicts of trade unions, even benevolent, even useful edicts, should have the effect of law on men who were not their own members, that it was desired to picket their houses and that there should be attendance of people with authority to persuade them peacefully not to do what it was not thought by the unions that they should do. Peaceful persuasion was a powerful thing, but persuasion by the pacific exercise of power was a much greater thing; and it was the exercise of power which was sought to be legalised by the first section. He saw no mode of amending the section to bring it into harmony with what the law ought to be. The second section would simply legalise boycotting. He did not believe in boycotting in the sister island, and he did not believe in it here. As to the third clause, when twenty or thirty thousand pounds worth of damage was done by means unquestionably illegal, and by the organised action of a powerful trade union, it was a denial of justice and a preposterous proposition to say that only an agent who could pay a farthing in the pound could be sued. The great resources of a trade union could not be made available for the strengthening of the trade in its conflicts with employers and at the same time be protected from ill consequences of a wrong committed by the organisation. Trade unions ought not to be allowed to undertake great actions and wield great forces to give effect to them, with their great resources, without rendering those resources liable, when they were proved to be wrong, to be applied in remedying the wrong they had inflicted. He was sure that was a sound proposition. He could not see how this Bill would do what was sought to be done on the other side without legalising and sanctioning injustice. If hon. Members opposite simply wished to

  1085
  amend the law so that those who had the control of trade disputes should have a stronger inducement than they had now not to go beyond the proper scope of their authority he would heartily support any such measure. The Bill did nothing of the kind. Its tendency was in the opposite direction. Nor did the Bill seek to exclude sick and benefit funds from the area of conflict. The trades unions could themselves protect these funds if they desired to do so. It had been said that these funds, swelled as they were by the sick and benefit contributions, were the means of giving confidence to the trades unions. He believed they were, and if he were a trades unionist he should sympathise with the view of the hon. Member for Durham. But they could not expect to keep large funds available for fighting trade disputes, and then claim legal protection from any ill consequences which might occur. He had been reluctantly brought to the conclusion that he was bound to vote against the Bill, because it infringed the principle that every Englishman should dispose of his labour as well as his goods according to his will, subject to the control of the laws of the country.
  Amendment proposed—
  To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Thomas Wrightson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he would endeavour to confine himself in the few observations he proposed to make to the remarks of his hon. and learned friend opposite, because on him had fallen the onus of dealing with what he might term the legal difficulties of the position. He recognised that it was conceded on both sides of the House that the condition of the law with regard to trade unions and combinations by workmen was unsatisfactory; in his judgment it was intolerable, and he thought he should be able to make perfectly clear his reasons for that conclusion. His hon. and learned friend started by saving that the Bill
  1086
  was so badly drawn that it was incapable of amendment. He himself was not prepared to defend the terms of the Bill. It was only fair and just that a Member who rose to speak in favour of a measure before the House should make perfectly clear his general views in relation thereto, and he conceived that in respect of particular provisions of this measure there was large scope for amendment. But that did not weigh on his mind in the vote that he should give. He should vote in favour of the Bill because, with all due deference to his hon. and learned friend opposite, he thought it could be amended. He saw no difficulty whatever in the Committee of the House or the Committee on Law dealing with the Bill on such lines as to render it conformable to the general principles of our law, and at the same time satisfy the legitimate grievances of trades unionists.
  It was a strong expression to say that the state of the law as it at present stood was intolerable, but he thought he could substantiate that. The position of trades unions, having regard to recent decisions, was worse than it was before the Act of 1871. Before that Act was passed a trade union was what might be termed an outlaw. Its members were liable to prosecution for engaging in a criminal conspiracy. It had no right to sue and no right to be sued. They could not make it answerable in its funds; in other words, it was not recognised in a Court of justice, except in so far as its members could be proceeded against criminally. That was the state of the law before 1870. The Legislature then came in and passed a statute whereby it said, "We legalise you; you shall be permitted to possess and administer funds; you shall be permitted to bring and sustain actions to protect your funds; and, apart from that, certain things which you do in combination or restraint of trade shall not be illegal." Under that statute trade unions for a considerable time, without let or hindrance from the Judicature of the country, except when and in so far as they transgressed the criminal law, proceeded to carry out their legitimate combinations in restraint of trade. Then, at a late stage in the history of trades unions, the civil courts, invoked by the employers,

  1087
  stepped in and said, "You, trade unions, shall be responsible in your funds for the wrongful acts of your agents." His hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth said, "Why should not a trade union be responsible in respect of its acts, exactly like any other organisation." His answer was that a trade union was, in itself, an anomaly so far as the law of the country was concerned. The law said, "You are an illegal combination; but we will make you a legal combination." Then the Courts of justice stepped in and prevented this combination, legalised by Act of Parliament, from carrying out its operations in the only way in which a trade union could carry out its operations. That was his answer to his hon. and learned friend; and he pressed this upon the Attorney-General. They did not ask, as his hon. and learned friend had suggested, that trade unions should enjoy absolute immunity. What they did ask was that, inasmuch as they could only carry on their operations in restraint of trade by the combined action of their members in withdrawing their members from employment, and so bringing pressure to bear on the employers of labour, they should not be responsible if they did not, by their authoritative councils or governing bodies, authorise or ratify illegal acts. That was not, he agreed, in the Bill as it stood. But they were voting on a general principle or proposition which could be brought into line in Committee with what the trade unions desired. He concurred with his hon. and learned friend that the Bill went further than that, but in Committee it could be limited as he had suggested, so that trade unions should be liable for wrongful acts when they expressly authorised these wrongful acts.
  His hon. and learned friend went on to deal with the case as put by the decision in "Lyons v. Wilkins." What "Lyons v. Wilkins" decided was that it was not lawful for members of a trade union to attend at or near a place of employment in order to persuade workmen to give their legal notice, or to persuade persons who proposed to become workmen from entering into employment. Now, he contended, there was nothing illegal in advising a man not to enter into a contract; and neither was there anything illegal in advising a man to
  1088
  terminate a contract by legal notice. He thought everybody in that House must agree to that proposition. His hon. friend said that that was coercion; that that was stopping a man from carrying on his business. It was nothing of the kind. It was no more stopping an employer from carrying on his business than certain shipowners stopped others from carrying on their business in the Mogul case. What the workman did, in the case of "Lyons v.Wilkins," was what the workman was clearly entitled to do in his own interests, and what the trade union was entitled to do in the interest of its members. What the trade union said was, "We advise you not to enter into a certain employment, or to leave it at the termination of the legal notice." The immediate purpose was not to stop a business, but to help the workmen, and that was perfectly legitimate.
  MR. DUKEsaid that the deciding question in that case was whether the object of the trade union was to stop a man's business.
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESbegged his hon. friend's pardon. The decision in that case was founded on this—although there were dicta of the Judges on other points—that picketing under the statute was only protected for the purpose of "communicating" and "obtaining" information; and it was because, in that case, that had been exceeded—in other words, the men had given advice—that the decision was given. So long as picketing was confined to communicating information it was legal. Mr. Justice Stirling, in the Charnock case, decided that "picketing" could only be legal if confined to obtaining and communicating information. Now what did they, the promoters of this Bill, ask? They asked that it should be lawful for a workman or a trade union or a number of workmen to advise people to do something in their own interest which did not involve the perpetration of a wrong on another person. Why should that not be permissible? They said, and said justly, with all due deference to the Judges who had decided the case alluded to, that those Judges did, to a certain extent, press the law against the trade unions in a way that they should not have

  1089
  done, and which had not been done in other cases of a cognate character but not affecting trade unions. His hon. and learned friend said that that would result in violence; but he was sure that the promoters of the Bill were perfectly free to consider words which would prevent any tumultuous assembly—that was to say, that there should not be a larger number than three or four persons attending at the place of business. As had already been pointed out, it was perfectly competent for the law at present to stop a tumultuous assembly. But here was a case with which his hon. and learned friend had never dealt. At Fleetwood two or three workmen attended at a landing stage to persuade other workmen not to enter into a contract with certain employers; and a Court of law held that that was illegal. He asked the Attorney-General whether that decision could be justified on the lines taken by his hon. and learned friend. Those who were in favour of the Bill under discussion did not wish to impinge in the smallest degree on the decision in the case "Quinn v. Leathem." All they wanted to say was that it was monstrous and intolerable that a trade union should be held responsible for some foolish, inconsiderate, or malicious action on the part of an unauthorised member.
  After the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case, everybody connected with trade unions believed that the position of trade unions was far more perilous than it had been for the last thirty years. If the present position held, it was impossible for a trade union, as such, to use the only means in its hands to bring legitimate pressure to bear upon an employer by persuading workmen to terminate their employment or not to enter into employment. The promoters of the Bill contended that such action was, in the spirit of the law of the land, perfectly legitimate and justifiable, and, therefore, with some modifying words, they were in favour of a measure on those lines. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time six months hence said that a Royal Commission was sitting on this subject. But how long was that Commission going to sit? The question specially dealt with in the Bill before the House was ab-
  1090
  solutely familiar to every lawyer in the House, and one which the Attorney-General knew root and branch. Were they to wait for legislation on a matter jeopardising the funds of trade unions until they had the decision of a Commission which did not enjoy the sympathy and confidence of the working clasess? He submitted that they were entitled to receive from the Government an authoritative declaration as to what course they proposed to take to remedy a state of things which he had no hesitation in saying was intolerable.
  *MR. RANDLESsaid he had to confess that he could not controvert the legal arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion, but he quite agreed with the mover that this was a question which required to be settled. For years past he had voted in favour of some such settlement as was provided in the Bill now before the House. He had had considerable experience in the operations of trade unions, and he must confess that he had found, by endeavouring to work in sympathy with them, that employers of labour derived very great advantage from them. By means of trade unions questions which seemed almost incapable of solution had been satisfactorily settled and great economies effected in the carrying on of large industrial concerns. A very large proportion of the industrial population believed rightly or wrongly that they had been placed in an intolerable position by the Taff Vale decision, and he felt that some steps should be taken towards making an effectual and effective settlement of the questions in dispute. He regretted greatly that the trade unions did not see their way to fall in with the proceedings of the Royal Commission; but that was all the more reason why Parliament should not disregard the wishes of a large proportion of the industrial population of the country. He supported the Bill on general grounds, without regard to details, as for instance on peaceful picketing. If the suggestion of the Member for North West Durham were adopted to limit the picket to two or three persons——
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Yes.
  MR. RANDLES: This would meet a great objection to the Bill. He believed that legislation would do no violence to the interests of the employers, and would promote permanent good will and peace, upon which the country's prosperity depended, among all classes of the community. He would vote for the Second Reading.
  *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid it was with very great regret that he found the Bill framed in such a way that he did not feel himself able to give it his support. He had a great many trade unionists in his constituency, and they had pressed him very much to support the Bill. He wished that he could have done so; but the reason why he could not give his consent to the Second Reading was the extent of the powers conferred by Clause 1 on persons concerned in a labour dispute. He was very desirous of seeing all proper powers given to trade unionists to enable them to carry on the work which, within limits, had been most beneficial to the workers of the country; but he was not prepared to put trade unions and still less unauthorised groups of persons above the law, and that was distinctly what Clause 1 did, especially if it were read in connection with Clause 3. Trade unions and even unorganised bodies were, simply because they contemplated a dispute, to have privileges which the law did not allow to private individuals. It was proposed that because a trade dispute was in contemplation or in progress, certain other persons should be deprived of the ordinary protection of the law of the land and of his remedy for what was described in law as a nuisance. A man might find his house surrounded by a crowd; and when he called on the police he would be informed that the police could not interfere because a trade dispute was in contemplation or in progress. Here they were face to face with a provision not for improving the condition of the employed, but for diminishing the ordinary liberty of the individual. Therefore, he could not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  He wished the Report of the Royal Commission had been published, and he also wished that the Commission had been
  1092
  differently constituted, because he agreed that there were great legal and practical difficulties connected with the administration of the law in its present state. He wished the House could have some authoritative statement which would enable it to deal with what the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham admitted was a very difficult and intricate matter. He would suggest that a possible mode of dealing with the Bill would be to refer it to some Committee which could ascertain the facts; then they would have a better chance of legislating so as to meet the present difficulty and give satisfaction all round. He did not think it was much in the interest of workmen generally that groups or bodies of persons should be allowed to organise picketing altogether relieved from responsibility for their acts. The House ought to be careful how it interfered with trade at the present time. Trade was not too prosperous. He himself felt appalled at the increase in the number of the unemployed; and he could not help feeling that it was partly due to ill-considered demands on the part of workmen which tended to drive industries into foreign countries. Capital and the brains to carry on business were now very cosmopolitan. If there was an opening in this country for men of capital or genius, then business would come here; but if they imposed unnecessary difficulties capital and genius would fly to other countries. Therefore, they ought to be very careful regarding the regulations and alterations they made in matters connected with the trade and industry of the country. He quite agreed that they had much to gain by well regulated trade unions; but if the law were extended so as to enable unauthorised and unregulated persons to interfere with the course of trade the result might be to drive into other countries commercial undertakings which this country would otherwise retain with great advantage to all concerned.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he would only trespass on the time of the House for a few minutes, because the arguments for the Second Reading had been so ably stated in the admirable speech of his hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley, that it was impossible

  1093
  to develop them without danger of repetition. Speaking for himself and all those on the bench behind him, he wished to say that they would cordially support the Second Reading. Every speaker, so far as he could ascertain, had paid a dialectical homage to the principle of combination. They were all agreed now, whatever might have been the case thirty or fifty years ago, that the right of combination on the part of workmen, which used to be regarded as a dangerous or revolutionary licence, was essential to the due regulation of the trade of the country and to a system of equitable relations between labour and capital. When they looked back on the state of things which prevailed before the legalisation of trade unions and compared it with the state of things which happily existed to-day, he thought it did not admit of argument that there had been, in the first place, a great diminution in the number, and, secondly, a great civilising and humanising in the methods of industrial conflicts. What was more important than either, while they had through the recognition of what was called collective bargaining much greater security for the economic liberty of the workman than could have been possible when he was left as a mere isolated individual to make his own contract with his employer, they had at the same time introduced by a recognition of the practice of combination a sense of responsibility and of statesmanship in the conduct of industrial relations which was of equal value to employer and employed.
  For two reasons it appeared to him that legislation was now not only expedient but necessary. They were both founded upon the same set of facts—namely, the recent course of judicial decisions. He would remind the House of what was said by two of the most eminent lawyers this country had ever known, who happened to sit on opposite sides in politics—the late Lord Cairns and the late Sir George Jessel—when the Bills of 1871 and 1875 were under the consideration of Parliament. Lord Cairns, speaking in the House of Lords, said that the principle on which the Bill was framed was that offences ill relation to trade disputes should be thoroughly known and understood and that the trade unions should not be subjected to
  1094
  the intricate and deluding action of the law of conspiracy. Sir George Jessel, speaking in the House of Commons, said that if they simply abolished combinations and left the matter to be dealt with by the common law, they would transfer that accurate definition of crime which ought to be the province of legislation to the judges, and they would leave a whole class in utter uncertainty as to what their duties and obligations were. The working classes wished to see offences, whatever they might be, accurately defined. Founding himself on those two statements of two great lawyers, he ventured to say that the very evil which they both contemplated and deprecated was the evil from which we were suffering now in consequence of these recent decisions. The law which Parliament intended was now interpreted in a totally different sense—he would not say wrongly, for of course he bowed with the utmost deference to the decisions of the highest tribunals of the country—from that which was intended by the judges of the day. He thought he might fairly appeal to his hon. and learned friends, on whichever side they sat, to say whether, even at this moment, if they had to pass a carefully set examination in the application of the law of conspiracy and the law of agency to trade disputes there was any one of them who would feel any confidence that he would pass. Certainly, for himself, he professed his complete inability to reconcile by any form of language he could devise, however vague and elastic, the conflicting and warring dicta of the judges of the land. That was the first reason.
  The second reason for legislation was equally cogent. It was that, whatever they might think of the justice or the injustice of these decisions as interpreting the intentions of the Legislature or the meaning of the common law, undoubtedly they had had the effect, and would have the effect, of seriously encroaching on the legitimate exercise of the right of combination. Take only one case, that of "Lyons v. Wilkins." There was no doubt that it had enormously circumscribed what everybody had hitherto regarded as the natural and normal activity of trade combination

  1095
  in bona fide industrial disputes. Therefore on both grounds it appeared to him that the time had come when, without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission, because this Bill only dealt in a modest way with one branch of the matter, the House of Commons might properly be asked to initiate legislation to deal with a pressing grievance.
  What were the provisions of the Bill? The first clause affected the limits within which the practice of picketing should be legitimate. He was not using a language of exaggeration when he said that if such a decision as that in "Lyons v. Wilkins" was carried into effect it rendered picketing a perfectly nugatory and impossible industrial weapon. He was not going to defend abuses. He was quite sensible of the danger there was, when picketing was resorted to, of its degenerating from a legitimate weapon into something in the nature of coercion. No trade unionist he had come across failed to recognise that there was a boundary line between that which was legitimate and that which was illegitimate, and no one who was responsible for the framing of the Bill wished, either directly or indirectly, to give any countenance to the exercise of intimidation or coercion; but undoubtedly the effect of the construction put on the Act of 1875 was that unless picketing was used for the purpose for which he ventured to say it never could be exclusively used—for the purpose merely of communication—it became absolutely illegitimate and the foundation for a civil action. Human nature being what it was and social customs being what they were, it was difficult to suppose that when a workman or a couple of workmen were delegated by a trade union to perform this function during a strike, they could ever confine themselves to the communication of information only. Why should they? Why should they not have the power, without violating the law, and without exposing themselves, or, what was more important, the funds of their union, to civil proceedings—why should they not have the power of peaceable and legitimate persuasion? It was absolutely pedantic to say that any human being, constituted as he was, in a matter in which he was seriously interested and in which he was
  1096
  endeavouring to bring about a certain result, was to be confined to the bare communication of facts and not to be allowed to draw inferences from them unless he was prepared to face an action at law. Unless they were prepared to prohibit picketing altogether they must allow the legitimate exercise of the right of picketing to include, not merely the communication of information, but also peaceful persuasion.
  The second clause of the Bill provided that—
  "An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action if such act when committed by one person would not be ground for an action."
  What was the objection to that? He did not know what it was. Did the House realise that in 1875 the Legislature provided that such an agreement should not be punishable as a criminal conspiracy if the act was committed by one person? This clause only sought to remove the liability to civil procedure where the Legislature removed the liability to criminal proceedings thirty years ago. It might be said this was a mere academic change. It was not anything of the kind. This additional protection was required in order really to carry out what was, undoubtedly, the intention of the Legislature in 1875.
  There only remained the third clause, which provided for the protection of trade union funds. He entirely agreed with the purpose of the clause, but he was not satisfied that this was the best mode of accomplishing it. Until the decision of the House of Lords, in what was called the Taff Vale case, no human being ever thought the funds of trade unions could be made liable in this way. He believed it was the intention of the Legislature in 1871, and again in 1875, that the funds of trade unions should not be made liable for any such purpose. If they had had the intention to make them liable the simplest way of giving legislative effect to it would have been to have incorporated it in the Acts; but the Legislature refrained from doing so. The real evil to be guarded against, which had been accentuated and intensified by this decision of the House of Lords, was that the funds of a union

  1097
  might be made liable for the acts of persons who were really irresponsible agents, though their agency might be attributed to the union. If they could once get such a limitation of the law of agency as would protect the union, and, therefore, its funds, from the acts of those who were not definitely authorised to bind it, he believed the result of the decision in the Taff Vale case would almost entirely disappear. What was the best mode of arriving at this result was pre-eminently a matter for discussion in Committee; but there was no reason whatever, although he disagreed with the mode proposed, why he should refuse his assent to the Second Reading of this clause as well as of the rest of the Bill. He had now explained to the House why it was that, taking the Bill as a whole, he heartily supported the Second Reading. With reference to what fell from the hon. Baronet opposite, he should strongly deprecate referring the Bill to a Select Committee with the object of taking evidence. There was no new evidence to be taken. All the principles which ought to determine the way in which they should deal with the facts were known, and ought to be either accepted or rejected; and to refer the Bill to a Select Committee would be nothing more nor less than to consign it to slow and certain death.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he had no intention of that kind. He only desired that all the facts should be clearly ascertained.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not impute any such intention to the hon. Gentleman, but that would be the effect of his proposal. That there were difficulties no one would dispute; but what were the new facts to be ascertained? What he would suggest, and he hoped the suggestion would be accepted by the Government and the great majority of hon. Gentlemen, was that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it should then be referred to one of the Standing Committees, which would be the proper tribunal when they were dealing with a measure which was not a matter of Party controversy, the general principle of which the vast majority of the House favoured and which required that adequate and more or less informal dis-
  1098
  cussion which was to be got in a Committee upstairs better than on the floor of the House. He earnestly hoped the House would give a unanimous vote in favour of the Second Reading.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said that one of the most gratifying features of the debate had been the recognition by Members on both sides of the House of the great and good work done by trade unions. The hon. Member or Mid.-Durham and his hon. friend the Member for St. Pancras both agreed in stating most emphatically that they regarded the relations between masters and men as having been substantially improved by the stability and prosperity of the trade unions. If that was agreed in all parts of the House, he thought he might say that this debate had not been thrown away.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had said that in former days combinations were unduly restrained. He fully agreed with that; but he thought they should take care that, while in former days combinations of workmen were inequitably suppressed, they did not rush into the opposite extreme and exempt such combinations from the operation of the general law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was difficulty and obscurity about the law, and he suggested that hon. Members would find difficulty in passing an examination in it. He agreed that the views of examiners on points of that kind might differ; but he did not think that his right hon. friend and he, if they talked the matter over properly, would very much differ as to what the law was. He was unable to concur with the view so generally expressed that there was such great confusion in this branch of the law. With that view, in 1903 a strong Royal Commission had been appointed, the head of which was the present Lord Justice General, then the Secretary for Scotland, and which was otherwise composed of Mr. Cohen, K.C., Sir Godfrey Lushington, Sir William Lewis, and Mr. Sidney Webb. It had been hoped that Mr. Webb would have been accepted as entirely representing the views of those who were interested in labour questions

  1099
  ["No"]—well, the Government had had some reason for expecting that he would—but it turned out that the trade unions did not recognise the composition of this Commission as satisfactory to themselves. History sometimes repeated itself. The trade unions resolved not to give their assistance to the Commission which sat in 1874; and if that Commission had ceased when the trade unions declined to give assistance the country would have been the poorer by a most admirable Report and the legislation which ensued. The present Commission had concluded their hearing of the evidence. They were now engaged on the work of preparing their Report, which he hoped might be in their possession by the month of May next. Surely if it were the case, as had been so emphatically stated on the other side, and by none more emphatically than by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, that the law was in confusion and wanted clearing up, it was in the last degree rash to rush into legislation without waiting to see what so very strong a Commission was able to report on it.
  He cordially joined in the compliments which had been paid to the speech of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who had moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He listened to that speech with the deepest interest—and to no part of it with more interest than that dealing with Clause 3, which purported to do away with the Taff Vale decision. That clause was far more important than the other two put together, and if it were carried the trade unions might feel that they had effectively got everything they wanted. The hon. Member, in approaching that clause, admitted that prima facie it seemed an unreasonable thing to confer on trade unions an exemption which was not enjoyed by any other body of men in the United Kingdom. The reasonableness of that remark must be apparent to every one on both sides of the House. The reason the hon. Member gave for adopting the clause, notwithstanding its apparent unreasonableness, was one of the strangest reasons he had ever heard. It was that, even if this were legislation of an objectionable character, in former days there had been class legislation in the interests of the employer. He dared say there had been; but was that any reason
  1100
  for having class legislation in the interest of the labourer?
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid that he did not give this as a reason for supporting this particular clause. He was then speaking of the Bill as a whole and dealing with the argument of those who said they objected to special legislation for labour. His suggestion was that that came very strangely from those in whose interest there had been so much special legislation in the past.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought that, on referring to the reports of his speech, the hon. Member would see that he made the observation with regard to the third clause, and as a reason for adopting a proposal which seemed unreasonable. Was it, or was it not, unreasonable? A wrongful act was done by the directors of a powerful body. The immediate agents in doing that wrongful act were workmen who could not pay any damages to the persons injured; and the proposal was that the body which directed the doing of that act should be exempted from all liability; and they were actually told that the person injured ought to be satisfied with the liability of the individual workmen, who were simply the agents of an association. He submitted that the misgivings which the hon. Member for Spen Valley evidently felt when he was attempting to convince the House were amply justified, and he was not surprised that not even his ability was able to drive away the gloomy doubts which had risen in his mind. One of the most valuable contributions to the debate was the statement of the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham that he did not object to a trade union being made liable for any wrongful act the commission of which it had authorised. That was the state of the law at present.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he thought where an unlawful act had been committed, if the executive committee of a trade organisation or the general council gave the instructions, there was no reason why they should not be held responsible.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he had known the hon. Member for many years,

  1101
  and what he had said now was in keeping with everything he had known of him. That was not, however, in this third clause, and he trusted the hon. Member would individually feel it to be his duty to vote against that clause.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he thought the law as it was interpreted would make a union responsible for the acts of an irresponsible person.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No; the third clause, about which he feared there was some misconception, was—
  "An action shall not be brought against a trade union or other association aforesaid for the recovery of damage sustained by any person or persons by reason of the action of a member or members of such trade union or other association aforesaid."
  If that clause passed it would exempt a trade union from liability for the acts which the members of the association had authorised. [Cries of "No."] There was not a lawyer in the House who would get up and say that was not the effect of the clause. He noticed an expression of emphatic assent to that statement from those capable of forming an opinion. The object of this clause was to exempt trade unions from the operation of what was the law of the land. Was that a reasonable proposal? The hon. Member for Mid.-Durham seemed to think that legislation would be required to exempt trade unions from liability for an act which they had not authorised. No such legislation was required. The liability of a trade union proceeded entirely from the fact that the act complained of was done by their authority. Last year a case was quoted, he thought by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries, in which the Judge of first instance had held that the trade union was not
  1102
  liable. It was taken to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal held that the trade union was liable on the ground that there was sufficient evidence that the trade union had authorised the act that was complained of. A case was decided the other day—the case of "Airey v. Weighill"—where the Court of Appeal decided, on February 10th, as reported in The Times of February 11th, that the trade union in that particular case was not liable because they did not authorise the act which was complained of. He would read the concluding sentence of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls—
  "The plaintiff had failed to satisfy the burden which lay upon him of showing any authority either of the lodge or of the union. The application would, therefore, be allowed, and judgment entered for the union."
  That was simply the general law of the land.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that was the act of a lodge official. Would the union have been liable or not if the act had been committed by a principal officer of the union?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it was no use entangling the House in details as to particular cases. The broad principle was perfectly clear that the union was not liable unless the act was done by its authority. Of course the authority of a trades union, like that of any corporation, might be derived in various ways, by express resolution, by the rules authorising some act to be done, by word of mouth from the governing body, or there might be circumstances giving a clear indication that the union in fact authorised the act to be done. What was this substituted proposal which was

  1103
  hinted at by his right hon. and learned friend the Member for East Fife? He said he could not support the clause as it stood, but would look forward to amending it in Committee, by showing that it would apply only to an act not authorised by the trade union. It was proposed to alter the present law and enact that a trade union should not be liable unless a resolution in terms authorised the act complained of. It was perfectly manifest that would be introducing an exemption in favour of a trade union that did not exist in regard to any other body. What would be the result? There never would be a resolution; everything would be done by word of mouth, and the association would enjoy an entire immunity because authority had not been given by resolution. He confessed that after hearing the subject discussed on three or four occasions in the House of Commons he had never been able to understand why trade unions had not adopted a simple and effective remedy which lay in their hands, that of separating the fund used for fighting purposes from the fund available for sick pay and provident purposes. They did not do this, and year after year the House was asked to remove a grievance which, so far as it existed, was created wholly by refusal to adopt a course which would remove that grievance.
  He had dealt with the third clause first because it was the most important clause in the Bill, and before he left it he desired to make one other observation with regard to it. It had been said again and again that it was the clear intention of the Legislature in 1871 that trade unions should not be liable, but he ventured to say that hon. Members might read the debates upon that
  1104
  measure from end to end without finding a single expression that sustained that view. There were many references to preventing actions, but those actions were by members against societies or societies against members. But there was nothing in the Act, nor so far as he could find in the debates upon the Bill before it became law, which tended to show that that was the intention of those who were responsible for the passing of that Act. He was contrained, therefore, to enter a word of protest against the statement continually made in this discussion that the decision in the Taff Vale case was in distinct violation of the expressed intention of the Act.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was not expressed.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he had no intuition in the matter; he could only get at the intention from what was said.
  The second clause of the Bill came next in point of importance after the third. The first clause was of some importance, the second of more importance, and the third of capital importance. The second clause was as follows—
  "An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action, if such act when committed by one person would not be ground for an action."
  In support of that clause it was said that parties in the case of trade disputes were exempted from criminal proceedings for conspiracy by combination, and that was true; but he failed to see, if a wrong was done to an individual by parties entering into combination, why, if there appeared ground for action at common law, the

  1105
  aggrieved person should be deprived of the means of redress. He could not help thinking that what had been said was perfectly true, that the clause, if passed, would be used for such purposes as those which caused an Irish name to become almost a household word throughout the country; it would legalise what was known as "boycotting," a practice which had been generally reprobated. He earnestly asked the House to consider whether it was desirable to move in this direction in reference to combinations. Was it not matter for very serious consideration, in view of the formation of those great commercial combinations known as trusts, whether the movement should not be rather in the other direction? If the clause should be passed because it would help trade unions, it might operate in a manner trade unionists would not like in favour of employers. This was a point hon. Members interested in labour matters should consider. He recognised the justice of everything that had been said as to the assistance the House derived from the presence of Labour representatives, but he asked them seriously to consider whether it might not be a little shortsighted and to their disadvantage to run a risk of this kind.
  The first clause the hon. Member for Spen Valley dealt with with great ability, but his earnest appeal to the House was not really in support of the clause, it was upon a totally different matter. In the Act of 1875 there was an exemption from the criminal liability that was imposed for various acts, among others "watching and besetting," when such was for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, and if the proposal in the
  1106
  Bill had been merely to insert the words "or for peaceable persuasion" the hon. Member could have made out a very strong case indeed in favour of his contention.; but that was not the proposal or anything like it. Peaceful persuasion in itself did not incur any liability. The question which arose here was whether in any case arising out of that "peaceful persuasion." which the Act of 1875 called "watching and besetting," the right of action given where premises were watched and beset should be taken away. It was forgotten that in the case "Lyons v. Wilkins" it was contended that there was a nuisance at common law. But this clause would legalise watching and besetting, even though it amounted to a nuisance. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries shook his head, but he had been doing that for three years. When this effect of the clause had been pointed out, why was it year after year introduced in the same form?
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he really did not think it mattered.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYasked why it was not made clear. He had a strong impression that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the view that there should be no exemption from liability if the watching amounted to a nuisance, his colleagues would not accept it. He could not understand the idea of bringing a clause in the same form year after year unless there was something in the particular form. He had not concealed from the House his personal view, and he should vote against the Bill; but at the same time recognising that, as the Prime Minister said last year, a practice had

  1107
  grown up of regarding the Second Reading of private Bills as more in the nature of an abstract Resolution which had the support of hon. Members than as a stage in legislation. Hon. Members on that side who found themselves able to do so might if they pleased vote for the Second Reading; but personally he should vote against it. He hoped that the desirability of legislation proceeding on the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed in June, 1904, might be recognised. What hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted was a definition of the law. They said the law was difficult to understand and they wanted it clearly stated. But this Bill did not propose clearly to state the law. It did nothing of the kind. It did not define the law; it was a measure to put trade unions above the law. The first clause, as he read it, would exempt them from the common law of nuisance; the second clause would exempt them from the common law of conspiracy; and the third clause would exempt them from the liability of action which every other person and corporation
  in the United Kingdom was exposed to. He desired to see trade unions go on and prosper, but he did not desire that they should enjoy the great authority which this Bill would confer upon them.
  Mr. WHITTAKERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  *MR. SPEAKER: As this Bill has passed the Second Reading after discussion on a previous occasion in the present Parliament, and has now been discussed again, I think the hon. Member is entitled to have an opportunity of ascertaining whether the House now approves of it, and is disposed to send it to a Standing or other Committee as suggested.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided; Ayes, 244; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 38.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, John

  Delany, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Asher, Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doogan, P. C.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Barrar, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Barry, Sir Francis T(Windsor)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bell, Richard

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Benn, John Williams

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Black, Alexander William

  Clarcy, John Joseph

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Blake, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Emmott, Alfred

  Boland, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crean, Eugene

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Brigg, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Crombie, John William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crooks, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cullinan, J.

  Field, William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Shackleton, David James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Sheehy, David

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moss, Samuel

  Slack, John Bamford

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Monlton, John Fletcher

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murphy, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Newnes, Sir George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants.)

  Harwood, George

  Norman, Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Hozier, Hon.James Henry Gecil

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Parrott, William

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Johnson, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Panlton, James Mellor

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Priestley, Arthur

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Randles, John S.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Russell

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reddy, M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Whiteley George (York, W. R.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (NDorset

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hnddersf'd

  Lundon, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Young, Samuel

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  M'Crae, George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Causton.

  M'Kean, John

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim. S.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carsop, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Dewar, Sir T R.(Tower Hamlets

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Colomb, Rt Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  1110

  1111

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Kerr, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield.)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Foster, PhilipS (Warwick, S. W.)

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Garfit William,

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gordon, Hn. J E(Elgin & Nairn)

  MacIvor, David (Liverpool)

  Tuff, Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Turnour, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnd'ry

  Moore, William

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Thomas Wrightson and

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Rankin, Sir. James

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 39.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Edwards, Frank

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrew'sBghs.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Asher, Alexander

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Chamberlayne, T. S'thampton

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Field, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B

  Crean, Eugene

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Benn, John Williams

  Crombie, John William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Black, Alexander William

  Crooks, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Blake, Edward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgo W)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Boland, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Brigg, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Gilhooly, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Delany, William

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Burns, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Harwood, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Hayter, Rt. Hn Sir Arthur D.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shackleton, David James

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehy, David

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Norman, Henry

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Slack, John Bamford

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Spencer, Sir F. (W. Bromwich)

  Johnson, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parrott, William

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Tillett, Louis John

  Lambert, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tomkinson, James

  Lambton Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Toulmin, George

  Lamont, Norman

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Langley, Batty

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ure, Alexander

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Corn wall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Randles John S.

  Wallace, Robert

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Rea, Russell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Thomas Gourtenay T.

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lundon W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne)

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Kean, John

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Russell, T. W.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Young, Samuel

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Moutrose

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whittaker and Mr. John

  Moss, Samuel

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Wilson (Durham).

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  Bill, Charles

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bingham, Lord

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Allsopp, Hon. George.

  Blundell, Colonel Harry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hon. Sir H

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Douglas, Rt, Hon A. Akers

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John CR.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  1114

  1115

  Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Garfit, William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hamilton, Marq, of (L'nd'nd'ry

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H

  Helder, Augustus

  Moore, William

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE (Taunton

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol. N

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Hozier, Hn.-James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Kerr, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Thomas Wrightson and Mr.

  Kimnber, Sir Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Duke.

  Knowlea, Sir Lees

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 130.(Division List No. 40.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.)

  Cameron Robert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Allen, Charles P.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Ambrose Robert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Asher, Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Ellice, Capt. EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Eve. Harry Trelawney

  Bell, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Benn, John Williams

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Crean, Eugene

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Black, Alexander William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Field, William

  Blake, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Boland, John

  Crooks, William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Brigg, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Flynn, James Christoper

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Delany, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Gilhooly, James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Burns, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Caldwell, James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Guest, Hon, Ivor Churchill

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mitchell, Edw. Fermanagh, N.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mooney, John J.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Harmsworth, R. Liecester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  Shackleton, David James

  Harwood, George

  Moss, Samuel

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sinclair Louis (Romford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Norman, Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hobhonse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Johnson, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parrott, William

  Tomkinson, James

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Toulmin, George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pemherton, John S. G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Labouchere, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Walton, Joseph, (Barnsley)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Randles, John S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Langley, Batty

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Reddy, M.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Weir, James Galloway

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn(Eifion)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Lloyd-(George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lundon, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, John

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh. N.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Young, Samuel

  M'Crae, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Runciman, Walter

  M'Kean, John

  Russell, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rutherford John (Lancashire)

  Whittaker and Mr. John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson (Durham).

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bill, Charles

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bingham, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  1118

  1119

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawrence Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks N. R)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Tuff, Charles

  Greene, Sir E W (Bury StEdm'nds

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Tannton

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Moore, William

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords., N W

  Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R (Bath)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sir Thomas Wrightson and

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Mr. Duke.

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bill read a second time.

  MR. WHITTAKERmoved the committal of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  *SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSONmoved to substitute "a Select Committee of Fifteen Members" for "the Standing Committee on Law."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, etc.,' and insert the words 'a Select Committee of Fifteen Members.'"—(Sir Thomas Wrightson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that as a member of the Chairman's Panel he wished to express his doubt whether this was a Bill which ought to be referred to a Standing Committee. These Committees were intended to facilitate the passage of Bills which were practically agreed in principle, but the details of which required careful consideration. The Aliens Bill of last session was referred to a Grand Committee, but no progress could be made with it, and it had eventually to be withdrawn. Other instances could be quoted in which Bills evoking strong opposition had been referred to a Standing Committees with equally unsatisfactory results. He was afraid the Grand Committees would break down or fail in their usefulness should Bills of a controversial character be referred to them, and he earnestly advised the House not to refer this Bill in the manner proposed.
  MR. HARDYexpressed his surprise that, after the protests made on the other side of the House last session with regard to the Aliens Bill, it should now be proposed to refer this Bill to a Standing Committee. He did not believe that any Chairman of a Grand Committee would say that this was a measure which ought to be so referred. It was a much more contentious Bill than the Aliens Bill. Referring to another measure last year, when objecting to its committal to a Grand Committee, the Leader of the Opposition said that not only was it bitterly opposed and resented by a large body of Members but it also introduced a new constitutional practice and principle. Those words applied very aptly to the present measure, and he hoped the House would support the Amendment.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid the course of the debate had shown that there was very little agreement in any part of the House with reference to this Bill. Not only had a larger number voted against it than voted against the Aliens Bill, but no two speakers had agreed as to any one clause. The mover admitted that the matter was one of great difficulty; the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham was not satisfied with the picketing clauses; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife disagreed with previous speeches.
  MR. EUGENE WASONrising to a point of order, asked whether the hon. Member was entitled to make a Second Reading speech on this Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not entitled, under guise of showing that this was a contentious measure, to discuss all the different opinions which had been expressed in the debate. He was entitled to argue that as the debate had shown differences of opinion, the Bill ought not to go to a Grand Committee, but he would not be in order in examining the individual arguments used.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONwished to argue that a Select Committee was a more competent body than a Grand Committee to deal with this Bill. Much more information was required before the Bill could be properly dealt with, and that information could be given better before a Select Committee than before the Grand Committee on Law. There was no hurry about the matter, and he submitted that the existing confusion of mind and division of opinion could be best sifted by a Select Committee.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 41.)

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bell, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Benn, John Williams

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Asher, Alexander

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Black, Alexander William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Blake, Edward

  Burns, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Boland, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Caldwell, James

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Brigg, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Carvil, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reddy, M.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnson, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Roche, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cremer, William Randal

  Labouchere, Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Crooks, William

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Runciman, Walter

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Russell, T. W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Langley, Batty

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lewis, Joln Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  S ack, John Bamford

  Duffy, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Crae, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs

  M'Kean, John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjam n

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fenvick, Charles

  Mitchell, Edw. Fermanagh, N.

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Field, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas,J A (Glamorgan,Gower

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tillett, Louis John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ure, Alexander

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Norman, Henry

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wallace, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

  Webb, Col. Wm. George

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O Connor, T. P. (Liverpool

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Harwood, George

  O Dowd, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Helder, Augustus

  Parrott, William

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Young, Samuel

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLEKS FOR THE AYES—

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Whittaker and Mr.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Randles, John S.

  John Wilson (Durham).

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  1124

  1125

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Moore, William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fison, Frederick William

  Morgan David J. (Walthamstow

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour,Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Rankin, Sir James

  Beach,Rt.Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bigwood, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bill, Charles

  Halsey, R. Hon. Thomas F.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bingham, Lord

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Midd'x

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Heath Sir James (Staffords, N W

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Carson, R. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Shaw-Stewart Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hoult, Joseph

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kerr, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Keswick, William

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Turf, Charles

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Davenpot, William Bromley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sir Thomas Wrightson and

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Maseey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon Mr. WHITTAKER rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYpointed out that the hon. Member did not claim the Main Question until after Mr. Speaker had put the Question from the Chair.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he put the Question from the Chair and if no one had objected it would have gone through. But as an hon. Member rose to continue the debate I was about to interrupt the business, and the closure could be moved.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS.
  Bill to extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, to the Officers of urban district councils, and to give such Officers a right of appeal in certain events, ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph Leese, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Bigwood, Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Mr. Robert Cameron, Mr. Cox, Mr. David John Morgan, and Mr. Newdigate.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS BILL.
  "To extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, to the Officers of urban district councils, and to give such Officers a right of appeal in certain events," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ACCESS TO BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS).
  Bill to enable ratepayers to inspect Books and Documents of local Education Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Dr. Macnamara, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Lough, Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Moon, and Mr. Forde Ridley.

  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ACCESS TO BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS) BILL.
  "To enable ratepayers to inspect Books and Documents of local Education Authorities," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a
  1128
  second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
  On the Motion that the House do now adjourn,
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he desired to call attention to a matter which he believed was within the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker. Considerable interest was now being taken in the proceedings of Parliament, but strangers were unable to obtain admission for the Evening Sitting until half-past eight in the evening, and had to remain outside the Strangers' Entrance until that hour. He understood that on Wednesday evening about 400 persons were standing outside in the wind and rain, and that they began to form in line as early as a quarter before seven o'clock. His purpose in rising was to ask whether, subject to the proper preservation of order within the precincts of the Palace, steps could not be taken to prevent discomfort of that kind arising, as he was confident that officials and Members alike wished to treat strangers is courteously as possible.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I will inquire into the matter. These matters are arranged by the police, after consultation with the Serjeant-at-Arms, but of course the Serjeant-at-Arms will attend to any instructions I may give him.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for re-arranging the boundaries of the dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester, and Bath and Wells." [Bishopric of Bristol Bill [Lords.]
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday), and read 1a.
Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Gamble's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses to attend on the hearing of the petition for substituted service, one to produce a document.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SCOTCH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1905; with appendices.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (CIRCULAR 523).
  Circular as to additional grants on account of pupil teachers.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Account of Moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the city of London for the year 1904, also on account of extraordinary works executed other than general repairs for the same period. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of the Standing Committee:—

  E. Spencer.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Elgin.

  E. Camperdown.

  (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  V. Cross.

  L. Burghclere.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, That they have appointed the Viscount Cress Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  REVACCINATION OF CHILDREN.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to introduce a Bill this session for the promotion of the revaccination of children at school age. I am induced to ask this question because it appears to me that the attitude of His Majesty's Government has undergone some change on this subject, and I think it is extremely desirable that we should know exactly what the Government's intention is with regard to it. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that the Vaccination Bill of 1898 received some rather strong criticism when it was passing through its stages in this House because it did not provide for revaccination. Lord Lister made a very strong protest on that ground, and at that time Lord Harris, who had charge of the Bill, used these words—
  The noble Lord (Lord Lister) indicated that he had already approached members of the Government and been encouraged to hope that the Government considered the possibility of introducing a Bill next year with the object of encouraging revaccination. If the noble Lord had not indicated that fact I had authority to say so myself. It is, of course, quite impossible to attempt to introduce the principle this year, but the Government are prepared to consider whether it would not be possible to bring in a Bill next year to encourage revaccination, and, under all those circumstances, I trust your Lordships will allow this Bill to proceed."
  That was not, I admit, a promise to introduce a Bill the following year, but it was at any rate a promise that the matter would be dealt with by the Government, and not be entirely forgotten. When I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Revaccination Bill which I introduced last year, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—
  "The Royal Commission thought it undesirable to have resort to compulsory revaccination

  1043
  because they conceived—and I cannot help thinking rightly conceived—that compulsory revaccination would add to the volume of hostility to revaccination which the Government had to encounter in the country. That view has prevailed with His Majesty's Government.
  Now, the Royal Commission reported in 1896, and it is not easy to understand how Lord Harris in 1898 said on the authority of the Government that they would consider whether they could not bring in a measure to encourage revaccination, and then last year the Government should fall back on the Report of the Commission which they knew in 1898 said that revaccination, if not undesirable, was inexpedient. The effect of hanging up this question is seen in the figures. From February, 1904, to February, 1905, in 315 urban districts there were 7,704 cases of smallpox, and of this number 7,469 occurred in 169 districts. Of course, those districts where vaccination is unpopular stand very forward in the list. At Dewsbury there were 560 cases; at Gateshead, 375; at Leicester, 262; at Newcastle, 382; and at Oldham, 301. The same may be said of the rural districts. I have the figures here, but will not detain your Lordships with them. That is only one of the evils which ensue from the want of revaccination in this country. It is largely a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. All the counties are being put to great expense in providing isolation hospitals, which would not have been necessary in the majority of instances if vaccination and revaccination had been properly carried out. In Germany, where revaccination is systematically practised, isolation hospitals have almost entirely fallen into disuse. One of the difficulties in the case of these isolation hospitals is that local authorities are obliged to pay very highly for the sites, because the land adjoining is necessarily deteriorated in value. If you put a smallpox hospital on a farm you cannot let that farm as easily as you could before. Not only that, but the whole population rises in arms, for no one wants an isolation hospital near him. All these difficulties and all this expense are caused simply and solely because we have not encouraged revaccination. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke last year
  1044
  as if the making of revaccination compulsory would be very unpopular. Allow me to say it is not a question, in one sense at any rate, of making revaccination, compulsory. So long as you have the conscientious objector it cannot be said that it is compulsory. What we want the Government to do is what Lord Harris said the Government were prepared to do——
  LORD KENYON: Prepared to consider.
  THE DUKK OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his correction. I will take his words and ask whether the Government have considered the matter and come to the conclusion that it is impossible to encourage revaccination by any measure that can be introduced.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, the Government are certainly in favour of encouraging revaccination as far as possible, and offered no opposition to the noble Duke's Bill of last year, but they rely on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1896, which stated that compulsory revaccination was not practicable. The Commissioners thought that there were practical difficulties in the way. Possibly these difficulties may have been overcome in Germany, but they did not see their way to overcome them in this country, and they were afraid that compulsion would encourage greater hostility here to revaccination. The Government considered the practicability of bringing in a Bill, and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to do so. The noble Duke quoted figures to show that there had been a considerable amount of smallpox in the country. I should like to say that the figures show a gradual diminution of cases since the Act of 1898, and the Government hope that this diminution may continue until smallpox has almost died out of the land. But as long as the conscientious objector is allowed to exist—and we do not see how we can get rid of him—it is impossible to introduce a Bill dealing fully and completely with vaccination and revaccination. On behalf of the Government,

  1045
  therefore, my reply must be in the negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.