Sitting of 3 August 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Gilesgate, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Ipswich; and, Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, & c, (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (CONSTITUTION OF THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES).
  Petition, from Cape Colony, for enfranchisement of the coloured races; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the various County Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Statement of Modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the Leeds (Housing of Working Classes) Order, 1901, and in the London (Aylesbury Place, Clerkenwell, and Union Buildings, Holborn) Improvement Scheme, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR CAR ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made under the Acts; I. Kingston-upon-Thames; II. St. Albans; III. Horsham; IV. Torquay; V. Southport [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland,
  1580
  under the Diseases of Animals Acts, for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Calender of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Salisbury preserved at Hatfield House, Herts. Part XI. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copy presented, of Seven Orders in Council of July 28th, 1906, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of July 28th, 1906, entitled the Brunei Order in Council, 1906, and the Nigeria Coinage Order, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of July 28th, 1906, approving the appointment of a Receiver and Agent for the Greenwich Estate and a revision of the Salary of the officer supervising the start of Instructors and Servants at the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table,
  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of July 28th, 1906, applying certain provisions of The Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to Southern Rhodesia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (NATIVE STATES UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF POLITICAL AGENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 1st August Mr. Morton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 317.)
  NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL)
  Copy presented, of Return of the Number of Courts Martial held and Summary Punishments inflicted during the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year

  1581
  1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 318.)
  CASUALITIES TO SHIPS ON THE NAVY LIST.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Bellairs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 319.)

  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1894 to 1903–4 (Thirty - second Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACTS 1882 AND 1890.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its Officers during the period from July 1st, 1905, to June 30th, 1906, to be provisionally detained as unsafe together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the lives lost by Wreck, Drowning, or other accidents in British sea-going Merchant Ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1894 to 1905, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (EXPORTERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 31st July; Mr. Essex]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 320.)

  Name of Metropolitan Borough Council.

  Year ended 31st March.

  Bills promoted by the Council.

  Bills opposed by the Council.

  Totals of Columns 4 and 6.

  Titles of Bills.

  Amount of expenses incurred.

  Titles of Bills.

  Amount of expenses incurred.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Expenses incurred in opposing Bills promoted by the London County Council being distinguished."—(Mr. Cleland.)

  COAL TABLES, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign Countries in each year from 1883 to 1905, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with Statements showing the production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 295, of Session.' 1905)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 321.)

  IRON AND STEEL, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign Countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 296, of Session 1905)."—Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 322.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the progress of Merchant Shipping in the United Kingdom and the principal Maritime Countries."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 323.)

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT).
  Return ordered, "of expenses incurred by each Metropolitan Borough Council in: each financial year since the constitution of the Council, in promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament, including Bills to-confirm Provisional Orders, in the following form:—
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD INSPECTORS AND AUDITORS.
  Return ordered, "of all Inspectors and Auditors now in the service of the Local Government Board, showing in respect of each (1) his name, (2) date of appointment, (3) age on appointment, (4) experience of local government or professional qualification previous to appointment, (5) present remuneration, (6) travelling and other expenses in the last financial year."—(Mr. Cooper.)
  LUNATICS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Lunatics chargeable to each Board of Guardians or Local Authority in London and Middlesex who are not irremovable from or settled therein, and who are natives of Scotland or Ireland."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill; Local Authorities.(Transfer of Treasury Powers) Bill; Public Works Loans Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Act (1898) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Colonial Marriages Bill [Lords]; Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords]; London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords], without Amendments.
  That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships copies of the Reports from the Select Committees appointed by this House in the present session of Parliament on:—1. Education (Provision of Meals) Bill; 2. Cabs and Omnibuses (Metropolis); 3. Official Publications, etc., together with the Proceedings of the Committees and Minutes of Evidence.
  Lords Message, requesting copies of Reports of Select Committees, considered.
  Printed copies to be communicated.

QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Delivery to Towns on Cambrian Railway.
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether
  1584
  he has arranged, or will arrange, for a second delivery in such towns situated on the Cambrian Railway as are at present without such delivery, and in which such delivery is possible with the existing railway service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the names of the places to which he refers I will make inquiry on the subject.

  Lundy Island—Suggested Harbour of Refuge.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has received a memorial praying that Lundy Island should be purchased, with a view to converting it into a harbour of refuge and a naval base for the protection of the Bristol Channel; and what action he proposes taking in connection therewith.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Such a letter has been received from a Welsh Chamber of Commerce and will be duly considered by the Department. As at present advised, however, the Admiralty have no intention of purchasing Lundy Island.

  Vacant Judgeship in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, pending the passing of the Judicature (Ireland) Bill, at present before the House, it is intended to appoint a new Judge in Ireland to fill up the vacancy at present existing; if so, is it intended to do so before the commencement of the autumn session of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have not been able to devote time to the consideration of the subject and have no statement, to make regarding it.

  Chinese Customs Administration.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assurances given by the Government of China to the British Legation at Peking to the effect that no change would be made in the methods of the administration of Chinese customs have been carried

  1585
  out; and whether the resignation of Sir Robert Hart is due to any failure to carry out such assurances.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Mr. Carnegie, His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Peking, has informed us of the new instructions to the Inspector General of Customs. They do not appear to be contrary to the assurances given by the Chinese Government, that the actual administration of the Customs will continue as before. But I am inquiring as to whether this has been made quite clear. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the report of the intended resignation of Sir Robert Hart is correct.

  Land Commission Methods.
  MR. DODD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in the case of Kee versus Doherty, at the Tyrone assizes, with reference to the purchase of the Sinclair Holyhill Estate; whether he is aware that the learned Judge animadverted on the methods of the Land Commission, and described as lamentable that the Land Commission should adopt extraordinary forms, creating confusion and litigation, and whilst anxious about the rights of the landlords should be absolutely silent about the rights of the tenants; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have seen a newspaper report of the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in the case referred to, but have no information whether the Report is accurate. According to this Report the learned Judge commented on the action of the Land Commission in the matter of mineral rights and sporting rights and thought that the turbary and free rights of the tenants had been in this particular instance insufficiently safeguarded. I have not had time since notice of the Question was given, to obtain the observations of the Land Commission on the matter, and it would, therefore, not be right for me to offer any comments on the case. The matter has not escaped their attention, and is being specially
  1586
  inquired into by the Judicial Commissioner. I may, however, say that the Government have no power to interfere with the judicial action of the Land Commission.

  Imprisonment of Men at Buenos Ayres.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment at the Port of Buenos Ayres of Frank Murphy, John White, John Green, Thomas White, and John Macdonald, on the charge of striking and firing stones on a policeman; whether he is aware that the men state they are not guilty of the act and that they have been detained four months in prison awaiting their trial, during which time they have had no beds or change of clothes; and whether, in view of the men's condition he will inquire into their statement that they have written letters to the English Consul but have received no assistance, and seeing that the German, who is a prisoner, communicated with the German Consul, who immediately took steps to see that he was properly provided with clothing and food, whether he will take steps with a view of having the trial of these men expedited.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The matter was brought to my notice on the 31st ultimo, and His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres was at once instructed by telegraph to make inquiries.

  Seat of Government in Uganda.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact of the sale of Government House at Entebbe, the ravages of sleeping sickness, the insufficiency of the water supply, fever, and the general unsuitability of the district adjoining the lake, he will, before expending public money in the erection of a new Government House, consider the advisability of removing the seat of government, temporarily at any rate, to the Kampala district, where the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness are unknown; and if he will, in view of the importance of the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates, endeavour to pay, himself, a visit to the country.

  1587
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to his Question of the 19th July. The Secretary of State is communicating with the Deputy Commissioner of Uganda and Dr. Moffat on the question of the desirability of removing the seat of government in Uganda to Kampala, and when their replies have been received the whole matter will be carefully considered in consultation with the Commissioner. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I should particularly desire to pay a visit to the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates if the Secretary of State were to consider that I could be spared from my duties in the House of Commons. But in view of the occurrence of an Autumn Session I fear my wish is hardly likely to be realised this year.

  Agricultural Experiments at Nairobi and Naivasha.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the agricultural interest attaching to the records of the experiments in live stock and agriculture at the Government farms at Nairobi and Naivasha, he will lay Reports on them as annexes to the Annual Report by the Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate for 1905–6.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Commissioner will be asked to furnish the Reports desired, and they will be laid accordingly.

  Secondary and Technical Schools in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the recently issued Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland shows that 109 schools undertake secondary and technical education, will he state where these schools are respectively situated, distinguishing higher class public schools from endowed schools and schools under voluntary managers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A complete list of the 109 schools referred to in the Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland will be found on
  1588
  pages 38 and 39 of the Report on Secondary Education (Scotland) for the year 1905 [Cd. 2793]. Pages 30–37 of the same Report contain statements of the income, expenditure, and liabilities of each of these schools which is in receipt of a grant from the Department. Schools under the management of school boards occupy pages 30–35. Schools, under the management of authorities other than school boards are given on pages 36 and 37.

  Trawling in Moray Firth.
  MR WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state for what period H.M.S. "Ringdove" has patrolled the Moray Firth, the number of cases of illegal trawling reported by her commander, and the number of convictions secured.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) H.M.S. "Ringdove" has patrolled the Moray Firth since 14th February last, but her commander has not reported any cases of illegal trawling since that date.

  Housing Cattle in Crofters' Dwellings in Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on August 2nd, 1905, the Lewis District Committee issued an order requiring, crofters and others who house cattle in their dwellings to separate the cattle from the living rooms by a substantial partition wall; and will he state in how many instances effect has been given to the order.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that about 100 houses have been altered in accordance with the terms of the notice referred to by the hon. Member.

  Worsthorne Council School.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Educational Committee of the Lancashire County Council to close the council school at Worsthorne and to extend a denominational school in the same area; and whether such a proceeding will receive the sanction of the Board of Education.

  1589
  (Answered by Mr. Birrel.) I am not aware of any proposal on the part of the Education Committee of the Lancashire County Council of the nature referred to by the hon. Member, but I may add that so lately as June 2nd last a site was approved by the Board for a new council school.

  Cunard Company Agreement.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total approximate sum accruing to the Cunard Company for the whole period during which payments are due in respect of the two fast vessels now building, allowing for both the subsidy and for the difference between the rate of interest which the company are paying on £2,600,000 lent by the Government and the approximate rate of interest at which a limited liability company can borrow in the open market.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Under the agreement sanctioned by Resolution of the House of Commons on August 12th, 1903, an annual sum of £150,000 will be payable from Votes to the Cunard Company, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. This payment is to run, as to one moiety, from the first sailing of the first of the two fast vessels: as to the second moiety, as from the first sailing of the second vessel; and is to continue for twenty years from the latter of these dates. The sum to be advanced to the company for construction of the two vessels is not to exceed £2,000,000. The sum advanced will be repaid by the company in twenty equal annual instalments, of which the first will be payable one year after the date of the first sailing of the second vessel. The advance will bear interest at 2¾ per cont. per annum, on one moiety, from the date of sailing of the first vessel, on the other moiety from the date of sailing of the second vessel. To enable my hon. friend's Question to be answered it would be necessary to know (1) the amount which the Government will ultimately advance; (2) the dates at which the future instalments of advance will be made; and (3) the rate at which a limited liability company can borrow in the open market. I am not prepared to commit myself to an opinion on the third point, and the other two are still uncertain.

  Alleged Payment of Wages at Public Houses in Cardiff.
  MR. J. H. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made by Mr. George H. Lock, that numbers of men are being paid their wages every Saturday at the Rising Sun Hotel, Cardiff; whether he is aware that the proprietor of the hotel pays the wages for a stevedore of Cardiff; and, seeing that the payment of workmen's wages in a public-house is a broach of the Truck Act, whether he can say what action he will take in the matter, with a view of preventing workmen's wages being paid in public-houses in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have called for a report from the Cardiff police on the subject, and am informed that the proprietor of the public-house has been seen and admits that certain men, who were in the habit of frequenting the house, have received their wages there for some time past. It appears, however, from the police report that they were paid by their ganger, and not by the proprietor as stated in the question. The proprietor states that he offered no inducement for the men to be paid at this house, and since his attention was called to the matter at the beginning of last month the practice appears to have ceased. The practice clearly involved a breach of the Payment of Wages in Public-Houses Prohibition Act, 1883. This Act, however, is enforced, not by the Home Office, but by the police, who report that no complaint has been received by them with regard to the matter, but that special attention will be given to the premises in question to prevent any repetition of the offence.

  Education Bill—Clause 4.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether care will be taken to prevent the general application of Sub-section 4 of Clause 4 of the Education Bill, and to confine its operation to those urban areas which are the subject of the offer of extended facilities made by the principal portions of Clause 4.

  1591
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I think there can be no doubt that the sub-section referred to will apply only to schools which fulfil the various conditions of Clause 4.

  Housing Proceedings in Birmingham.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the case of the Birmingham Housing Committee versus John Roderick, in respect of seven houses owned by the latter which had been represented by the medical officer of health under Part II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as being in a state so dangerous and injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation; if he is aware that through several adjournments of this case by the magistrates and their being unable to agree as to the facts of the case, the defendant owner was enabled to evade the proper carrying out of the repairs required by the sanitary authority, and that this action of the magistrates has caused more money to be spent in legal proceedings than would have sufficed to put the houses in a thoroughly sanitary condition; and whether he intends to take any administrative action in the matter or to assist sanitary authorities in their work by legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. John. Burns.) My attention has been directed to a report of the Housing Committee of the Birmingham Town Council with respect to this case, from which it would appear that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. I have, however, no power to review the proceedings of the justices in such a case, and I do not think I could usefully intervene in the matter.

  Poor Rates—Proportion due for Education.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is proposed to so amend the law as to require county and borough councils to inform overseers how much of the demand note for poor rate relates to education; and whether such changes are contemplated in regard to compounding as will enable every ratepayer to know what payment on account of rates is included in payment on account of rent.
  1592
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Both the matters referred to in the Question appear to me to be deserving of consideration, but I do not contemplate any immediate legislation with regard to them.

  Watford Secondary School—Loans.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the raising of a loan of £10,000 by the Herts County Council for the purpose of erecting a new secondary school at Watford, to be settled upon denominational trusts; if so, whether such sanction was given before the scheme for the new school was approved by the Board of Education; whether the Local Government Board were aware that the county council proposed to charge £5,000, part of the £10,000, on the Watford Urban District; whether any opportunity was afforded to the urban district council to place their views before the Local Government Board; and, in the event of no such opportunity having been afforded, whether the Local Government Board will withdraw their sanction to the loan until after a public inquiry has been held, and the views of the urban district council ascertained.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have sanctioned a loan of £10,000 by the Herts County Council for a contribution towards the cost of providing a secondary school for girls at Watford. I understand that the school is subject to a scheme, that an amending scheme has been proposed, and that a public inquiry has been held by the Board of Education with regard to it, but that it has not yet been settled. The question as to the parishes to be charged with the cost of the school is one for the county council. I did not receive any representations from the Watford Urban District Council on the subject. The loan, as already stated, has been sanctioned, and I am not in a position to take any further action in the matter.

  German Naval Programme.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what year's programme the German battleships "Kaiser Barbarossa," "Schwaben," "Wottin," "Preussen," "Braunschweig," and "Deutschland" belong; on what dates

  1593
  were they laid down; on what dates completed; and what time was occupied in building them.

  Name.

  Programme.

  Date Laid Down.

  Date Completed.

  Time occupied in Building.

  Years.

  Months.

  Kaiser Barbarossa

  1898

  August 1898

  May 1901

  2

  9

  Wettin

  1899

  October 1899

  October 1902

  3

  —

  Schwaben

  1900

  November 1903

  December 1900

  3

  1

  Braunschweig

  1901

  October 1901

  September 1904

  2

  11

  Preussen

  1902

  June 1902

  July 1905

  3

  1

  Deutschland

  1903

  May 1903

  June 1906

  3

  1

  British Naval Programme.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what year's programmes the battleships "Albion," "Montagu," "Dominion," and "Now Zealand" belong; on what dates were

  Name.

  Programme.

  Date Laid Down.

  Date Completed.

  Time occupied in Building.

  Years.

  Months.

  Albion

  1806–7

  December 1896

  June 1901

  4

  7

  Montagu

  1899–1900

  November 1899

  July 1903

  3

  8

  Dominion

  1901–2

  May 1902

  September 1905

  3

  4

  New Zealand

  1902–3

  February 1902

  July 1905

  2

  5

  Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Acts— Regulations.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board, with a view to making the necessary regulations in pursuance of Section 4 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill at the earliest possible date will refer to a committee of experts the determination of the limits of error in respect of the warranties as to percentages to be stated in invoices under the Act, and the consideration of the varying conditions under which home manufactured and foreign imported fertilisers and feeding stuffs have to be placed on the market, both as regards the percentages which can be guaranteed and as regards the
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following table gives the information desired by the hon. Member—
  they laid down; on what date completed; and what time was occupied in building them.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following table gives the information (desired by the hon. Member—
  time necessary for handling and for properly sampling these articles; and whether, in framing regulations as to sampling articles under the Act, the Board will make it clear that official samplers may take sample', by order of the local authority or the Board, in districts other than the county or borough for which they are appointed.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Yes, it is the intention of my noble friend the President of the Board to appoint committees to consider and advise as to the regulations to be made by the Board in pursuance of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuff's Bill. The suggestion made by my hon. friend in the concluding part of his Question will receive our careful consideration.

  The Case of Ex-Inspector M Carthy (Metropolitan Police).
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Ex - inspector John M'Carthy, of the Metropolitan Police, on January 28th, 1904, after twenty-two and a-half years' service, was dismissed on the unsworn and uncorroborated statement of a street-betting man named David Curtis; and whether he proposes to take any further steps in the matter, in view of the fact that M'Carthy has sworn that the charge made against him by Curtis is absolutely false.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone): The charges against Inspector M'Carthy were investigated with the utmost care by the Commissioner of Police, who, after giving him every opportunity for his defence,Came to the conclusion that he was guilty and that it was impossible to retain him in the force. This conclusion was fully confirmed by the verdict of a jury in March, 1905, when M'Carthy brought an action for slander against Curtis. Curtis then gave his evidence on oath, and it was supported by the sworn testimony of other witnesses. The jury, after a trial that lasted four days, gave a verdict for defendant, and I have not the slightest doubt that they were right.

  Customs House Quay—Open Space.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now announce his decision in respect of the open space at the Custom House Quay.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Corporation has been informed that, as the proposed use of the quay for fish market purposes would interfere with the work of the Custom House and also detract from the amenities of the area as an open space, I do not see my way to comply with their request.

  Portmagee—Suggested Appointment of Justice of the Peace.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although the petty sessions district of Portmagee, county Kerry, consists of the two parishes of Prior and Keelemilah, covering an area of over 80 square miles,
  1596
  and has within it police stations at Ballinskelligs and Portmagee, where petty sessions are hold, there is not a single resilient justice of the peace, and that if a summons has to be signed or a complaint made the person concerned must go a distance of 10 miles; and whether, in view of the fact that the general public are inconvenienced thereby, and that the rural district council has forwarded a resolution on the subject to the Lord Chancellor, steps will he taken to remedy this grievance by the appointment of a resident justice of the peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that he is causing inquiries to be made into the matters alleged in the Question. The resolution of the rural district council referred to has only been received within the last few days, and there has not been time to complete the inquiries. The Lord Chancellor informs me that the matter will not be overlooked.

  Bourke Cochran Trust.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture, etc., ruled that the question of the misapplication or loss of the Bourke Cochran trust fund was not within the scope of their inquiry, and has he any reason to suppose that this view will not also be applied to any statement on the subject submitted by Mr. Bourke Cochran's solicitor; was any member of the Department a director of the company which issued the statement in its prospectus that the Sligo Sawmills and Joinery Company, Limited, was launched under the auspices of the Department, and was that statement ever denied or repudiated until after the public had taken shares and lost its money; and will he take steps to have the whole transaction properly investigated, and the loss of the £10,000 given by Mr. Bourke Cochran and the rest of the share capital explained.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the statement of Mr. Bourke Cochran's solicitor will be considered by the Committee. No member of the Department was a director of the

  1597
  company. The statement in the prospectus, which, as I have already informed the hon. and learned Member, was not made with the authority or knowledge of the Department, was not withdrawn by them. As a matter of fact, the statement did not come under the notice of the Department until long after it was made, and all the money was invested. I see no cause for any such action on the part of the Government as is suggested in the Question.

  Conduct of Councillors Madden and O'Reilly—Dublin Corporation Inquiry.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation on the 11th of last month, when they unanimously adopted Report No. 58 of a Committee of the Whole House, dated 30th March, which met to investigate the conduct of Councillor Anthony Madden, High Sheriff of the city of Dublin, and Councillor Thomas O'Reilly, Deputy Chairman of the Licensed Vintners Dublin Association; whether he is aware that Madden and O'Reilly, acting in collusion, appointed a partner of Maddens named Thomas Murphy, afterwards changed on the minutes of the Improvements Committee to James Murphy, to carry out the work previously done by a Mrs. Malone, and that a sum of £7 15s. had been paid to Murphy before the irregularity of the proceeding had been discovered by the corporate officials; and will he say whether any steps will be taken to remove Councillor Madden, who was chairman of the Paving Committee, from the office of High Sheriff of the city.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information concerning the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation in this matter beyond that which may be obtained from the newspaper reports. According to those reports it would appear that the Corporation have taken all steps which may be necessary in the matter, and I am not aware that there are any grounds for taking the action suggested in the latter part of the Question.

  County Armagh Employment of Direct or Contract Labour.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a sworn
  1598
  inquiry was recently held by an inspector of the Local Government Board in county Armagh with reference to the question of the employment of direct labour or contract labour; and, if so, what decision the Local Government Board have come to on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have not yet received their inspector's report on the matter, and no decision has, therefore, been arrived at.

  Dog Licences in County Down.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the clerk of the petty sessions of Holyrood, Bangor, and Newtownbreda, county Down, has not made a correct Return of the improperly stamped dog licences; whether the Return of the £4 12s. worth of dog stamps, and their destruction, make complete the stamps purchased and used in reference to all the dogs licensed; whether the clerk returned particulars of licences issued for dogs for which stamps had not been cancelled; whether steps will be taken to obtain particulars of cases of mistake; whether steps have been taken to protect from prosecution the holders of licences, in which more than one dog appears, and for which the proper amount of duty has been paid, but which have been improperly stamped; and whether it is usual in such matters, when irregularities are admitted, to accept the excuse of the clerk concerned without taking steps to ascertain the accuracy of his explanation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the very full reply given by the Attorney-General for Ireland to the hon. Members' Question on this subject on 20th June. the registrar of petty sessions clerks informs me that he has satisfied himself, by personal investigation on the spot, that the clerk of petty sessions has correctly accounted for all fees received by him for dog licences. The register of dog licorices shows full particulars of the licences issued, including the number of dogs in each licence, and those have been fully accounted for. No prosecution will be taken against those persons whose

  1599
  licences were insufficiently stamped owing to the accident described in answer to the previous Question.

  Engineer Services—Checking Measurements.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether any and what saving resulted to the public through the visit made by the inspector when checking certified measurements for engineer services in the Southern Command on 30th July; what is the cost to the public for the inspector's salary, travelling, and hotel expenses for this inspection; and if inspection of this sort is effective, will the Secretary of State for War consider the advisability of relieving local officers of the trouble and responsibility connected with measurements, leaving it to the inspector to make and be responsible for all measurements.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no information at the War Office in regard to the inspection mentioned in the Question. There is no intention of relieving local officers of any of their present duties and responsibility.

  YeomanryȔReturn of Discharges.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that headquarters of Imperial Yeomanry regiments are required to make a weekly return, under Army Form B 2055, being nominal list of permanent staff whose discharges have been confirmed by officers commanding such regiments; and whether, in view of the fact that changes in permanent staff of Imperial Yeomanry regiments are very infrequent, he will save public money and time by causing the returns in question to be made yearly instead of weekly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It has been decided that this Return shall only be rendered when a discharge of a member of the permanent staff has taken place. Stops are being taken to carry out this decision.

  Return of Measurements of Recruits.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the object of
  1600
  the annual Return giving the measurements, etc., of all recruits, whether they pass medical inspection or not, which is made under Army Form B 215.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Return gives valuable information as to the physical development of the recruit-giving class, and aids the War Office in framing standards for recruits. The information also affords statistics of the general condition, trades and callings of those who offer themselves for enlistment.

  Imperial Yeomanry—(Return as to Recruits).
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to substitute an annual for a monthly Return of recruits for the Regular Army now made by Imperial Yeomanry regiments, seeing that very few, if any, recruits for the Regular Army apply to Yeomanry headquarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). It is essential that the War Office should be informed monthly of the work done by the permanent staff of the Yeomanry regiments, who are ex officio recruiters. It is hoped that the recruits obtained through this agency will be more numerous in future.

  Imperial Yeomanry—(Return of Expenditure).
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in Imperial Yeomanry regiments practically no money is expended in travelling claims, and not charged to the annual training grants, he will give instructions for the expenditure Return of such moneys to be made annually instead of quarterly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Returns of expenditure under Vote 6 are required to be rendered quarterly for the Army at home as a whole, and to render these complete the Returns of the expenditure referred to in the Question are required from the Yeomanry for the same periods.

  Alleged Attack on Connaught Rangers.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed

  1601
  to an occurrence in Donegal on July 24th, when a party of Nationalists attacked a number of men of the Connaught Rangers because they wore wearing the uniform of the British soldier, forced them upon their knees, and compelled thorn to curse the King and the British constitution and promise not to re-enlist in the Army when their term expired; and what action he intends to take to protect the soldiers of the King from such treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No information has reached the War Office from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland, as to the alleged occurrence.

  Lancashire Royal Field Artillery Militia —Efficiency in Drill and Shooting.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the efficiency in drill and shooting attained by the Lancashire Royal Field Artillery Militia this year, and the Report thereon of the Inspector-General of Horse and Field Artillery; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending this organisation to other parts of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question the Report of this year's practice has not as yet reached the War Office. As regards the second part of the Question, a scheme for training Artillery Militia in field artillery duties is being prepared.

  Establishment of Rifle Ranges.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Estimates provide for contributions towards the establishment of rifle ranges in such centres as are conspicuously suitable for depots of auxiliary forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No contributions towards ranges for auxiliary forces are provided for in the Army Estimates, but the War Department provides rifle ranges for Militia and Yeomanry, either by hiring under Vote 10, or by the use of War Department ranges.

  Public Hospitals and Rates.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way, by
  1602
  legislation or otherwise, to secure for all recognised public hospitals complete ' exemption from rates and taxes.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) The Question is one which raises many difficulties, and it will no doubt have to be considered whenever the revision of local taxation is taken up. In the meantime I am not prepared to make any general statement on the subject. I understand that hospitals are already exempt from certain Imperial taxes.

  Description of "Granite" In Admiralty Contracts.
  SIR EDWARD BOYLE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty will, in all future contracts involving the use of granite, insert before the word granite, the word British; and if not, will he say why this should not be done.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). I have nothing to add to the reply given on this point to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Thanet Division of Kent on March 3rd last.

  Treatment of Crew of the "Melville Island."
  MR. J. H. WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the suffering endured by the crew of the sailing ship "Melville Island;" whether he is aware that those men complained of being short of their allowance of food, and that the men were placed on board of the vessel at Melbourne by magistrate's order, which was afterwards sot aside by Mr. Justice Cossen, Judge of the High Courts; and whether, in view of the allegations made against the master that lie had seamen smuggled on board of his ship who had deserted from a Russian vessel, he will cause a Board of Trade inquiry to be held into this matter on the arrival of the "Melville Island" In this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have, so far, no information with regard to the case of which my hon. friend refers, but full inquiries shall be made in the matter, and in due course he shall be informed of the result.

  Supply of Jam under Admiralty Contracts.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in further contracts for supply of jam, due care and inspection will be provided to see that only pure sound fruit is used.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The existing contract arrangements provide that only pure, sound fruit shall be used in the manufacture of jam for the Admiralty, and the contractors' deliveries are subject to a minute and exhaustive examination by expert officers before they are accepted.
  New Writ for the County of Denbigh (Eastern Division), in the room of Samuel Moss, esquire (Judge of the County Court of Chester and North Wales).—(Mr. Whiteley.)

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Army and Political Gatherings.
  MR. MOREELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is open to officers and men in His Majesty's Army to take part in their military capacity in a political entertainment, organised by a political club for party purposes, at which entertainment a charge of 6d. a head is to be made for the benefit of the political club in question; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent such a breach of regulations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Officers and men are not permitted to participate in entertainments of the kind and under the conditions mentioned, and the particular arrangements to which my hon. friend probably refers have boon cancelled.
  MR. MORRELL: As the engagement referred to in the question was widely advertised will the right hon. Gentleman see that equally public announcements are made of its cancellation?
  MR. HALDANE: I think my Answer to this Question will suffice.

  Leckhampton Hill—Reduction of Sentences on Rioters.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering that the petition in the Leckhampton Hill case has been in his hands for eighteen days, and the evidence for over three weeks, that the men, one of whom took no part in the riot, have already suffered four weeks imprisonment, and are condemned to four and six months hard labour, whether he can give his decision thereon, or will he do so before the House rises for the Recess, or when will the decision lie made known, and will he say what is the cause for the delay which is taking place; is he aware that it is intended to test the question of the public right to this Hill in a higher court.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): There has been no avoidable delay in dealing with this petition. The case is an important one presenting many features of difficulty, and it has involved correspondence with the learned Judge and the police, besides the examination of voluminous documents. I am now, however, in a position to make the statement my hon. friend desires. While I agree with the learned Judge in regarding the offence or offences of most of the prisoners as serious, and in considering that substantial punishment was required to safeguard the proper observance of the law, on a full review of all the circumstances I am of opinion that the requirements of the case will be met by less severe sentences than those which were given. I have therefore advised His Majesty that Barrett should be released on this day week, when he will have served six weeks in prison, and that the other men should be released as follows:—Sparrow after two months imprisonment, Williams, Young, Luce, and Wallace after three months, and Ballinger and Heaven after four months.

  London County Council—Expenditure on Bills in Parliament.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant, as an unopposed Return, a statement of the expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills

  1605
  in Parliament during each of the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, estimated (in continuation of the House of Lords Return, No. 214, of Session 1903).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have no objection to giving a Return on this subject if the hon. Member will move for it. I will communicate with him later in the day as to the form of the Return.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will give a detailed Return of all plants sent out to private establishments from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, for the past five years, with those received in exchange during the same period.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: As I stated in reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Enfield on June 27th, † the preparation of such a Return would entail considerable labour and expense without any corresponding advantage, and my noble friend regrets therefore that he does not see his way to grant it.
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 935.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Then is there no possibility of getting the information asked for?
  [No Answer was returned]

  Blairgowrie Water Storage.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that at the Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water Provisional Order inquiry, held in Edinburgh on July 19th and 20th, the Commissioners passed the Order, not only taking water from, but depriving two flax spinning mills in Blairgowrie of their storage for water, without allowing a compensation clause, such as Section 16 of the Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Act of 1894, thereby endangering the employment of fifty people, and the prospective employment of about some thirty more; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 935.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As my hon. friend is aware, the procedure in connection with Orders under the Scottish Procedure Act of 1899 is statutory, and the Secretary for Scotland is not constituted a Court of Appeal from the decision of Commissioners. I will look into the matter he refers to, but I cannot give any pledge.

  Drumraney (Westmeath) Outrage.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHOn behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have succeeded in discovering the person or persons who fired shots into the dwelling of John Cassell at Drumraney, Westmeath, on June 26th.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I am informed that the police have made all possible inquiries into this case, but have so far not succeeded in discovering the offender.

  The Connaught Rangers.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on July 24th, near the town of Donegal, a number of men of the Connaught Rangers were set upon by a crowd of Nationalists, who roughly handled them, forced them to kneel and curse the King and the British Constitution, and promise not to re-enlist in the Army at the expiration of their term of service; whether the police know the perpetrators of this outrage; and what action is to be taken in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that two soldiers have reported that on July 24th, near the town of Donegal, they were roughly handled by several men— it would appear not a crowd—but whether these persons were Nationalists or not there is no information. One of the alleged assailants is known, and proceedings are being instituted against him. This being so, it is undesirable that I should enter into the particulars of the case; but, so far as

  1607
  my information goes, there is no foundation for the matters of fact alleged in the Question, beyond the facts which I have already stated.

  Sessiaghoneill Co-operative Stores.
  MR. MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been ascertained that Mr. M'Monagle, secretary to the Sessiaghoneill East Donegal Co-operative Society, was unjustly imprisoned; whether it has transpired that the shares and books which he refused to surrender were the property of his own society and not of the prosecutors; and whether the Government will consider any claim for compensation to Mr. M'Monagle.
  MR. BRYCE: The prosecutions in this case, which occurred last year, were not at the instance of the police, but of private prosecutors. I have no information whether the fact is as stated in the second part of the Question. I understand that the defendant has taken an action against the prosecutors for false arrest, but has failed. As at present advised, I do not see that the matter is one in which the Government are called upon to intervene.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
*MR. FELLmoved an Amendment to limit the number of persons engaged in picketing to "not more than three for each door, gate, or exit of the houses, works, or places." He said that at the last sitting of the Committee some discussion took place on this topic. This Amendment, while limiting the number of persons entitled to picket on behalf of a trade union body, somewhat enlarged the scope of their action. The Attorney-General had stated that while one or more persons were appointed for the purpose they would constitute a small body, while if 50 or 100 were sent it would amount to intimidation. He did not see what objection
1608
there could be to a body of three attending at or near the house or business place of a person from whom it was desired to obtain or to whom it was wished to communicate information and whom it was desired to advise to abstain from work. Three persons indeed could do that as well as or even better than a larger body. From the words "one or more" contained in the Bill it was clearly the intention that the body should be limited in numbers, but as had been pointed out by the Attorney-General there were works at which there were a good many exits, and a very small body certainly would not meet such a case as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, where there were forty exits. His Amendment would cover such a case, and he thought it desirable to have such provision clearly enacted in the Bill rather than that the number should have to be settled hereafter in the Law Courts.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word ' persons,' to insert the words ' but not more than three for each door, gate, or exit of the houses, works, or places after mentioned.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said he could not accept the Amendment. The clause provided that the picketing must be done "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" the reasonableness of such a proceeding depended upon various considerations, not merely the number of persons engaged in it but such things as the place, the hour of the day or night, the language used, and if only one of these considerations was mentioned in the clause it would throw into subordination the other elements which any tribunal would have to consider if called upon to decide whether the persuasion had been carried out in a reasonable manner. The Amendment, in his opinion, would not strengthen the clause, but on the contrary would weaken it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he thought that on a former occasion the Attorney-General pledged himself to some such Amendment as this.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I distinctly declined to pledge myself.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that when this question was being considered the Attorney-General said he would consider by the Report stage whether he could find words to meet the point, whereupon an hon. Member got up below the gangway and said he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider it. Apparently he had not considered it.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: That is not a fair description of what occurred. I have considered the point, and I have given my reasons for not accepting the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONslid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not considered it, because of what fell from an hon. Member below the gangway on this side of the House.
MR. WALTERSsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had no right to make such an observation.
SIR E. CARSON: I have a right to say it, and I will not be stopped from saying it, because it is the fact. The whole question of numbers is most important, and that is the very point we are seeking to raise by this Amendment.
SIR. F. BANBURY: Do I understand the Attorney-General to say he has considered the matter and has come to the conclusion that it would be wise to introduce words defining what are reasonable numbers?
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I think the question whether the right is exercised by a body of persons in a reasonable manner must involve the consideration whether the number is calculated to intimidate. I do not see how such an element can be excluded, but at the same time I do not think it wise to mention only one consideration in the clause to the exclusion of all others.
SIR F. BANBURYagreed that the Attorney-General promised to consider whether or not he would introduce certain words. Apparently he had done so and had come to the conclusion that the inclusion of the words was not advisable. It was the fact that an hon. Member below the gangway got up and expressed a hope that the point would not be considered, and hon. Members of the Opposition must be excused if in view of what took place in the earlier proceedings on the Bill they felt that the intervention of hon. Members below the gangway had something to do with the decision arrived at. But personally he was not at all sure that the introduction of the words would meet with his approval. They might make the sense a little better, but the clause was a bad one, and the best thing would be to move its rejection later on, as he proposed to do. To amend it now as suggested might prevent them dividing against it later on. As a matter of fact three men might be as intimidatory as fifty if they had at their back the power of the great trade unions. He regretted that their attempts to amend the Bill were not accepted in the spirit they should be. It was clear from their cheers and attitude that hon. Members below the gangway representing the Independent Labour Party wanted the Bill and nothing but the Bill. He believed the passing of the Bill would be bad for the country, and that it would injure the hon. Members and their friends more than it would the employers.
Question put, and negatived.
*MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to provide that persons engaged in picketing should be duly appointed by and act on behalf of a trade union. It seemed to him that the principle of the Bill was to regard capital and labour as two separate and distinct opposing armies and to make rules for their internal and external regulation. The Bill contemplated disputes between trade unions of workmen on the one hand and employers on the other. That might be a good thing or it might be a bad thing, but he desired to exclude from the conflict purely private persons who would be under no discipline

1611
and owing allegiance to nobody, possibly having no connection in the world, direct or indirect, with the dispute—people, for instance, like loafers, the assistance of whom neither side could properly desire and whose intervention must often result in undeserved anxieties to both. If the Government was determined to range capital against labour in this way, at least let the actual fighting be confined to the regular soldiers on each side, and let the camp followers and hangers-on of each side be excluded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'acting on their own behalf or,' and insert the words ' duly appointed by and acting.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had several objections to this Amendment. In the first place the practical effect would be that workmen employed in the same works could not persuade each other. If workmen A and B wanted to persuade workman C it would be necessary for them to go first to the union and be appointed agents.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTcomplained that there was nothing in the clause to prevent such things as occurred in a recent colliery strike in France, where the strikers followed a miner to his house on his return from work and so irritated him by their conduct that he shot the ringleader dead.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises on this clause. It would be covered by the words—
" peaceably and in a reasonable manner."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Amendment would not prevent workmen from discussing their affairs in the workshop, but it would prevent persons other than the authorised representatives of a trade union from going in a deputation to the house of a workman in order to persuade him. He would like to ask that body other than a trade union should send a deputation? [An HON
1612
MEMBER: The Temperance organisation]. Well, he knew that temperance bodies were very bigoted. ['' Oh, oh."] [Another HON. MEMBER: And the Tariff Reform League]. He did not think the Tariff Reform League ever did such an unreasonable thing. What they must avoid was enabling the use of indirect pressure for which it would be possible for the trade union to escape responsibility.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLreminded the Committee of what was done by Lord Cross's Act of 1875. The Conservative Government of that day did not think necessary the precautions which thirty years later it was declared were necessary.
Amendment negatived.
MR. F. E. SMITHmoved an Amendment that it should be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, "whether of workmen or masters," To attend at or near a house or place to obtain or communicate information or exercise peaceful persuasion. The object was to extend the same privilege to employers as was being extended to workmen, and he hoped the Attorney-General would render discussion on it unnecessary by at once intimating his acceptance. It was only consistent that this should be done, and was undoubtedly the original intention of the Bill. Hon. Members below the gangway had always declared that they desired nothing better than that their unions should be placed in the same position as associations of masters, and surely it was only lair that if trade unions were to be allowed to picket employers should also have the right in an industrial dispute to avail themselves of an analogous practice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word ' union,' to insert the words ' whether of workmen or masters.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he could not accept the Amendment. He held that it was not needed. He pointed out that if the employers were organized as a trade union they came within the definition of "trade union" contained in the Act of 1876, which, among other things, said that a trade union was a union between masters and masters. It was obvious, therefore, that persons might exercise this right either because they chose themselves to exercise it or as a right belonging to the men or the masters. There was nothing in the Bill to limit its scope to unions of men or to confine the right of persuasion to the representatives of the men. A man might persuade on behalf of the union, and a man might also do so on behalf of his master. That, he thought, was abundantly clear on the parallel of the legislation which he had mentioned.
*MR. HILLSsaid he quite understood that it was right that both masters and men should have the right of persuasion. What he wished to know, however, was whether the Attorney-General meant that the words trade union always included an association of employers.
SIR JOHN WALTON: Yes; that is so under the former Act.
*MR. HILLSthought that the Attorney-General ought to define what was meant by trade disputes and trade organisations. If he did so, he thought that all parties would be satisfied.
SIR E. CARSONdid not think that the argument of the Attorney-General would hold water. He thought the words "trade union" might be held to exclude associations of masters. He might also point out that the Attorney-General had himself put into his new clause the words, "trade unions of masters and workmen," and it appeared to him that if those words occurred in the new clause they would give rise to serious doubt hereafter, because they would tend to show that it was not intended to throw the question back on the previous Act. If already the
1614
term "trade unions"Included associations of masters, he did not see why a definition was necessary in this Bill; They ought definitely to settle this question of whether trade unions included associations of employers one way or the other.
LORD R. CECILdid not think the Attorney-General had considered the difficulty of this matter. He quite agreed that the provision that a trade union should not be liable for any action in tort should, if such a revolutionary principle were introduced at all, apply to masters as well as men. When, however, it came to a question of peaceful picketing everybody knew that it was desired by the men for the purpose of exercising pressure upon those who were not members of their union, and he thought that the introduction of this clause might lead to a system of industrial war instead of a system which regularised the ordinary practice now prevailing. Up to the present, however, it had not been the practice of the masters to picket, in any sense of the term. There would therefore be no harm, he thought, in inserting the words of the Amendment "whether of workmen or masters" In order to make it clear that the masters were to be placed in the same position as the workmen.
Question put, and negatived.
THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the substance of the decision appeared to cover the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood, which appeared next upon the Paper.
MR. BOWLESinquired whether the Chairman said that his Amendment to insert after the word "union" the words "or of an employer" was out of order.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he had not ruled that it was out of order, but he had said that he thought that the points raised by it were practically though not technically, disposed of by

1615
the decision at which the Committee had just arrived. He could not, however, ay that it was out of order.
*MR. BOWLES: Then I should be justified in moving it?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, the hon. Member can move it.
*MR. BOWLESthen moved to insert after the word "union" the words "or of an employer." He said that this Amendment differed very considerably from that which had been just negatived. It would be seen from the clause that a definite legal right to picket was conferred upon two different classes of persons, and two different classes of persons only. These acts might be done by persons who were entirely unconnected with the dispute acting on their own behalf, or persons acting on behalf of a trade union, and they now understood that trade union included an association of masters as well as an association of workmen. Therefore it came to this, that in contemplation of or during a trade dispute "picketing" of the kind contemplated by the clause was only lawful when it was carried on by persons acting on their own behalf, or by persons acting on behalf of a trade union, whether the trade union was composed of men or masters. This left out one class altogether who would be incapable of taking any action in their own defence. The clause as it stood entirely excluded the case of the employer— probably the small employer—who did not belong to any association of employers at all. That employer would, if he were involved in a trade dispute, have no power whatever to avail himself of the immunities and rights conferred by the clause, although they might be used against him in a most direct manner by an association of workmen. That was not reasonable nor fair, and the object of his Amendment was simply and solely to protect the single employer, who was not a member of an association. He hoped it would not be contended that under this Bill every employer would have to combine and join some association of masters. The notion that industry was to be divided into
1616
two great camps, and organisation was to take the place of freedom, was calculated in the end to lead to industrial anarchy. He held that industrial disputes did not differ from any other disputes, and were equally capable of being dealt with by the ordinary and equitable laws of civilisation. That was not the object of the Bill, which took out of the ordinary equitable laws of civilisation one set of disputes and one set only, namely, trade disputes. Surely, then, if that was to be done, the great and exceptional immunities and powers of the Bill ought at least to be conferred with an equal hand upon every person who might have become a party to such a dispute.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 1, line 14, after the word ' union,' to insert the words 'or of an employer.'' —(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the scope of this clause was to legalise acts of combination. But it did not deal with the acts of individuals, which were regulated by the ordinary law. Any employer who within the law sought to persuade his men not to leave their work was entitled to do so, and his case did not call for any special legislation in his favour, because he had the rights of an ordinary citizen.
MR. F. E. SMITHthought the Attorney-General was entirely in error when he said that the clause only dealt with acts done in combination, because it dealt with the acts of a person acting on his own behalf.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had not implied that the words "a person acting on his own behalf" would come within the word "combination." What he had said was that it was unnecessary to deal with the case of the employer who was not a member of an association and who endeavoured to induce his men to remain at work.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the Bill

1617
dealt only with the rights of people acting in combination, and did not deal with individuals. But that was quite different from the construction he had put upon the words of the clause only a moment or two ago. He said that art employer was perfectly well able to take care of himself, and he supposed that an association of employers would a fortiori be able to take care of itself. He did not appreciate the logic upon which the hon. and learned Attorney-General took up his position. It was perfectly clear that his hon. friend was right in the contention which he had put forward. Let them take the case of an ordinary employer who did not belong to a ring or union of employers. Strangers could come down and picket his men while the individual employer not belonging to a trade union was not allowed to take any action.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I never said anything of the sort.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he wished in view of that assertion to ask two questions. He wished to ask first of all whether it was still the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that under this clause an association or union of employers could counter-picket, and, secondly, was it his opinion that the individual employer could himself employ pickets under the clause.
SIR JOHN WALTONwas afraid that he did not make himself clear, but he thought as a lawyer the hon. Member would have understood what he said. The individual employer might under the ordinary law persuade his workmen not to leave their work, but a combination of employers if they acted together in doing so might be found guilty of conspiracy although the act which they committed if committed by an individual might not be criminal at common law. Apart altogether from the act of combination it was perfectly clear that an individual master might, if he did not commit a nuisance or trespass or violate the law in any way, persuade his own workmen. That was the common law and it was quite unnecessary to amend this clause in the manner suggested.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was simply amazed at the statements of the honourable and learned Attorney-General. He could not understand what he meant. Here was a clause that was going to legalise something that was not now lawful. It was going to make it legal to persuade men to work or not to work as the case might be. If it was lawful now to persuade a man not to work or to work, as the case might be, then they did not want this clause at all, but if it was not lawful so to persuade a man then they wanted to legalise it not only for the men but for the masters also. He thought they were all agreed on that.
SIR JOHN WALTON: We are not agreed. I pointed out that if it was a combination it was not legal.
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow the point. It was perfectly plain. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said it was a matter of combination. If three men were used by a master to counter-picket it was not lawful. If they did it on their own behalf they were protected by this clause; if the master said "go and do it" it was not legal. It was plain there was no protection if the men were acting on behalf of an employer, whilst there was if they were acting on behalf of a trade union. It was true that the unions of the masters were protected as well as the unions of the men, but the particular individual employer was not protected. Where was the justice of that? One of the two parties to these industrial wars, constantly, was the single employer, and the other was the trade union. This clause said to the trade unions, "You can employ two or three persons to picket," and it said to the employers, "You are not to have two or three men to counter-picket." "It shall be lawful for any person or persons," those were the people who were protected, the people who were employed by a trade union or on their own behalf, to do what? To picket. They must be people acting on their own behalf or on behalf of, a trade union. This clause was limited to persons representing a trade union or a union of employers, but not to single employers. He thought that when hon.

1619
Members looked at it they would agree with him that this was not fair. He was quite sure hon. Members representing labour wanted to be as fair to the employer as to the workman. Therefore he thought some such words as those suggested by his hon. friend should be inserted.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that, he was, he supposed, one of those stupid persons who could not follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney -General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that this was a clause dealing with combinations, but he failed to agree with that, because they had agreed in the previous clause that acts of combinations should not be legal unless they were act; that could be legally performed by one person. The question was a very simple one; it was whether under Clause 2 an employer sending out pickets could have the benefit of this security. As he understood the section and the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, he could not. If the hon. and learned Attorney-General meant that, he meant to pass one-sided legislation. He saw no harm in the Amendment of the hon. Member. While the Government was giving permission to the unions to picket it was absolutely refusing that right to an employer who did not join a ring of employers. If that was what the Government intended, if the single employer was not to have this right, let them say so.
*MR. HILLSasked whether he might make one more appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this Amendment. After the Act of 1875 picketing was allowed for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. They all knew that those words were narrow, and as one hon. member had told them, did not cover certain acts which he had performed. It was intended by this Bill to carry that a step further and allow picketing for the purposes of peaceful persuasion to work or to abstain from working. Before the Act of 1875 no union of workmen or association of employers or a single employer could picket without running great risks. After the Act of 1875 they could
1620
picket within certain limits. Now it was suggested by this Bill that certain persons should picket within very wide limits. Who were those persons? They were either associations of employers or associations of workmen, but there was no right in this clause for a single employer to introduce counter-picketing on his own behalf. If he did he ran a great risk. All they wanted was perfect fairness. Why should an employer who was not one of an association of employers be put in a worse position than a member of such an association? All they wanted was that the extended rights of this Bill should be granted to the employer who was not a member of an association of employers. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said the single employer had his rights under common law, but, the rights of an employer under common law were very small rights, and they were putting him, by this Bill, back into the position from which the trade unions of working men were rescued in 1875. Of course if he was wrong he was perfectly prepared to be corrected, but he could not see what answer there was to his contention.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he quite agreed that if its effect would be to put the single employer into a worse position, the clause ought to be modified, but as he read the clause it was intended to deal with cases in which the act of combination changed its legal character by reason of its being an act of a combination. If these words "one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of" were not put in, a combination of masters and men could not exercise powers under this clause if the act was of tortious act owing to the character of it. The employer who was an individual and the master of workmen might undoubtedly in a peaceful way, either personally or through persons he might appoint to do so. It was idle to say this clause put the individual employer in a worse position.
LORD R. CECIL: I would venture to point out that we have not received an answer to the point I tried to put to him.
MR. BOWLES: I really must ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General—
SIR JOHN WALTONrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 169, Noes, 22. (Division List No. 301.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Alden, Percy

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

O'Grady, J.

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

O'Malley, William

Astbury, John Meir

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gill, A. H.

Paul, Herbert

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Paulton, James Mellor

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Glover, Thomas

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Barnard, E. R

Hall, Frederick

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barnes, G. N.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Beale, W. P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Richardson, A.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bell, Richard

Haworth, Arthur A.

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hazleton, Richard

Robertson,SirGScott(Bradfrd)

Bertram, Julius

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Billson, Alfred

Higham, John Sharp

Robinson, S.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Hyde, Clarendon

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brooke, Stopford

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sehwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Jardine, Sir J.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Brunner, Sir John.T. (Cheshire)

Jenkins, J.

Sears, J. E.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shackleton, David James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. Hawick.B.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jowett, F. W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Byles, William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cameron, Robert

Kelley, George D.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Causton,Rt. Hn.RichardKnight

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Snowden, P.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Steadman, W. C.

Cleland, J. W.

Lehmann, R. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clough, W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lupton, Arnold

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Lynch, H. B.

Thorne, William

Cowan, W. H.

Macdonald, J, R. (Leicester)

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Vivian, Henry

Crossley, William J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davies, WT. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. PancrasN.)

M'Callum, John M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Duckworth, James

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wilkie, Alexander

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Marnham, F. J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Massie, J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Elibank, Master of

Montagu, E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

TELLERS OF THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Fenwick, Charles

Morse, L. L.

Ferens, T. R.

Murphy, John

Ffrench, Peter

Napier, T. B.

Nicholls, George

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereage, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Cavendish,Rt,Hon.Victor C.W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'or of an employer' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23, Noes, 173. (Division List No. 302.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Agnew, George William

Cowan, W. H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Jenkins, J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Astbury, John Meir

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Kelley, George D.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duckworth, James

Lamont, Norman

Barnard, E. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Barnes, G. N.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lewis, John Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lough, Thomas

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Elibank, Master of

Lupton, Arnold

Bell, Richard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bellairs, Carlyon

Everett, R. Lacey

Lynch, H. B.

Bertram, Julius

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Billson, Alfred

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Ffrench, Peter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brace, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macpherson, J. T.

Brigg, John

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Brunner, Sir JohnT. (Cheshire)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Burke, E. Haviland

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marnham, F. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cameron, Robert

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Montagu, E. S.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mooney, J. J.

Charming, Francis Allston

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morse, L. L.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murphy, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

Napier, T. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Cleland, J. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Clough, W.

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Grady, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Cooper, G. J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E. Grinst'd

Jacoby, James Alfred

Paid, Herbert

Paulton, James Mellor

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Toulmin, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sears, J. E.

Vivian, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Seely, Major J. B.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Shackleton, David James

Walters, John Tudor

Raphael, Herbert H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Richards, T. F.(Wolvorh'mpt'n

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Richardson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Snowden. P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chosh.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Robinson, S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rowlands, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Summerbell, T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. Pease.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Thorne, William

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word '' peaceably "In line 15, stand part of the Clause ' be now put."
Question put. "That the Question ' That the words of the Clause to the
word" peaceably, "In line 15, stand part of the Clause' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 178, Noes 24. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Cooper, G. J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Alden, Percy

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Astbury, John Meir

Crooks, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Crossley, William J,

Jenkins, J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Joyce, Michael

Barnard, E. B.

Dilke, Rt.Hon.Sir Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Barnes, G. N.

Duckworth, James

Kelly, George D.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beale, W. P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Bellairs, Carlyon

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Bertram, Julius

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Billson, Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Thomas

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fenwick, Charles

Lupton, Arnold

Black, Arthur W-(Bedfordshire

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brace, William

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, H. B.

Brigg, John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macdonald,J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gill, A. H.

Macpherson, J. T.

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glover, Thomas

MacVeigh,Charles(DonegaI, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Cameron, Robert

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Marnham, F. J. W

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montagu, E. S.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mooney, J. J.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Clough, W.

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Thorne, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Toulmin, George

O'Grady, J.

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Ure, Alexander

O'Malley, William

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Vivian, Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sears, J. E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paul, Herbert

Sooty, Major J. B.

Walters, John Tudor

Paulton, James Mellor

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S,)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick.B.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitley, J. H.(Halifax)

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Smyth,ThomasF.(Leitrim, S.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Richards, T. P. (Wolverh'mptn

Snowdon, P.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Richardson, A.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradfrd

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Robinson, S.

Sullivan, Donal

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Summerbell, T.

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

NOES.

Acland-HoodRt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Thomson,W.Mitchell (Lanark)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Cavendish,Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E,)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided: Ayes 181 Noes 22. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Causton,Rt.HnRichard Knight

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Channing, Francis Allston

Ffrench, Peter

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Astbury, John Meir

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Atherley-Jones, L.

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gill, A. H.

Baker, JosephA.(Pinsbury, E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clough, W.

Glover, Thomas

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barnard, E. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barnes, G. N.

Cooper, G. J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Hall, Frederick

Beale, W. P.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Cowan, W. H.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Bell, Richard

Crooks, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crossley, William J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bertram, Julius

Cullinan, J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Billson, Alfred

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

Dickinson,W. H.(St. PancrasN.)

Hazleton, Richard

Brace, William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Brigg, John

Duckworth, James

Higham, John Sharp

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hyde, Clarendon

Brunner,Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Elibank, Master of

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Jardine, Sir J.

Cameron, Robert

Fenwick, Charles

Jenkins, J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Murphy, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Napier, T. B.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Snowden, P.

Joyce, Michael

Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Steadman, W. C.

Kelley, George D.

O'Grady, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Paul, Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lamont, Norman

Paulton, James Mellor

Sullivan, Donal

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Summerbell, T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Thorne, William

Lough, Thomas

Raphael, Herbert H.

Toulmin, George

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas(W. Monmth

Ure, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Vivian, Henry

Lynch, H. B

Richardson, A.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Walters, John Tudor

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Robertson.Sir GScott(Bradf'rd

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Robinson, S.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Rowlands, J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Callum, John M.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott,A.H.(Asbton under Lyne

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seely, Major J. B.

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mooney, J. J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Pease.

Morse, L. L.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex. F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon J. (Londonderry, South)

Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Hicks Beach and Air.

Cecil, LoL'd R. (Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bowles.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

*SIR CHARLES. DILKEsaid the Committee now came to deal with a matter which was really very hard-fought in the Standing Committee last year, namely, the subject of picketing. It was the subject of a very long debate, and after a great deal of objection had been raised to the picketing clause words were proposed to be inserted substantially the same as were now in this Bill. An offer was made by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, who was then in charge of the Bill, to put in these words. That offer was made to meet the opposition to this clause in a private Member's Bill, which was opposed by the Government in the Standing Committee, where the opponents of the measure had a larger proportional representation than in the House. Whilst there was a large majority in the House
1630
in favour of the Bill, in the Committee the majority was very small indeed. Finally, as a compromise, these words were offered. He admitted that they were taken from the Act of 1859, by which peaceable persuasion was definitely and formally recognised as lawful. After long debate, the present Lord Chancellor spoke very strongly against the insertion of these words. On the 5th April, Sir Robert Reid said that these words had been offered reluctantly by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, and that their insertion had been reluctantly assented to by the friends of the Bill. The present Lord Chancellor also said that they were offered as an effort at conciliation; and that, if the Amendment was accepted, he would not offer that opposition which otherwise he should have offered to the inclusion of the words.

1631
That course on his part was dependent on whether the Conservative Government would give their support to the Amendment. Sir Robert Reid ended his speech by saying—
" I say emphatically that I do not think the insertion of the words necessary, and I think they may produce unfortunate results."
The words were rejected by the Committee on a division, on the ground which he had quoted from the speech of the present Lord Chancellor. The objection was that the word "reasonable" was dangerous, and that it was not desirable to put such a vague word into the Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words ' peaceably and in a reasonable manner.' "— (Sir C. Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to De left out stand part of the Clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. It was essential to the success of this Bill that these words should remain in the clause. It was obvious that when they were going to legalise the right of a number of persons to assemble with a view to persuading others, that right should be qualified in some proper manner by placing it under reasonable restrictions. There were two ways in which that might be done—they might specify the various conditions that must be observed in order to gauge the character of the gathering, and the proceedings of the people assembled. They might say, as had been suggested, that words should be inserted in the clause to indicate the hours within which the gathering might take place; they might specify the spot at which persons might assemble, and they might point out that they must not cause intimidation, or make use of language and demonstrations which would cause alarm or danger. That would be a cumbrous clause, and would cause as great difficulty in construction as the expression which the Government, as an alternative, had put into the Bill. On the one hand they would have a clause indicating the things and the conditions which must be observed by the men
1632
who were engaged in the operation, and on the other hand they would leave it to the discretion of the Courts of law to say what was reasonable. He accepted the view that some difficulty might arise in construing the word "reasonable." No doubt it was an extremely flexible expression. He felt, though he did not know whether his opinion was shared by others, just as great difficulty in setting out the conditions and qualifications subject to which this right might be exercised. While he thought it possible that the word "reasonable" might raise some difficulty in application, he could not conceive an expression more appropriate and more likely to do justice on the whole to all parties concerned.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESregretted that the Attorney-General could not see his way to accept the Amendment. He respectfully differed from his view that any limitations were necessary. The commission of an act at or near a place did not involve the commission of an illegal act; and if an illegal act of violence or intimidation or an act of a criminal character was committed, it would be open to the parties to take action. The words proposed to be left out, it appeared to him, were not only unnecessary but mischievous, because it was not put to the magistrate to deal with a matter of fact, but to find on a matter of opinion, and no law court could interfere with the decision which he arrived at when the words which were to be found in an Act of Parliament conferred discretion on him. The Attorney-General's illustration was inaccurate. He said that the clause might indicate certain hours. It might be an unreasonable hour, but it was for the magistrate to decide whether it was or was not a reasonable hour. It might be an hour perfectly reasonable in his view, and in the view of a trade union, and yet the magistrate might not think that it was a reasonable hour, and there would be no power to review his decision. He objected to loose language of this description in an Act of Parliament. He said with some considerable experience of the working of the Acts relating to trade unions that the retention of these words would mean handing over to the magistrates an absolutely unlimited discretion in arriving at

1633
a conclusion, whether picketing was or was not reasonable. For these reasons he urged the Attorney-General to be satisfied with the general conditions of the law, that a person who committed a criminal offence might be punished, and not to put in words which handed over picketing entirely to the mercy of the magistrates.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill these words were mentioned, and it was understood that they would be matter for consideration on the Committee stage. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean in this matter. They would prefer that these words should be left out. He wished some compromise could be brought about n this matter. He would suggest that if the word "peaceably" was retained it would amply cover the intention of Parliament in regard to what might Tiappen in picketing. The word "reasonable"In the opinion of Labour Members gave the Courts too much scope. The Courts might decide that an action was unreasonable though it was not unlawful. He would urge the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "peaceably" would not cover the case. Trade unions did not wish to waste their money in regard to cases before the Courts. They wished to do the fair thing. Two magistrates might say that this or that was unreasonable, and there would be no appeal from their decision. Besides, this word gave an undue amount of power to a constable, for he had only to give his opinion that certain actions were unreasonable, and he would not need to give his reasons for coming to that conclusion. The opinion of the police was held to be of importance in police-courts. He appealed to the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "peaceably" would not cover all possible cases.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that in the discussion which had just taken place they were asked not to insert a maximum for a picket, because the Government was about to introduce the word "reasonable." He confessed that
1634
that remark of the Attorney-General influenced his vote, and he hoped the Government would stand by the announcement which they then made.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he was very glad the Attorney-General had made the announcement that he would adhere to these words. Any member who would consider the matter would see that it was absolutely necessary to have some limitation, and he could not conceive any words which were more capable than these of being applied to the very varied circumstances which might arise in these matters. If they put no words of limitation into the clause the question then arose, were they not entitled to carry out what they here legalised, no matter what might be the methods or the effect on the people concerned? To leave it at large like that, and to legalise picketing, no matter what might be done, or under what circumstances, seemed to be legislating entirely in the dark, and in the wildest possible fashion.
MR. PARKESthought that the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" were passively assented to in the earlier discussions on this matter by the hon. Members below the gangway, and it was astonishing to be told now that they were not necessary. For those who did not agree with this Bill and looked upon it as very drastic and extreme it was altogether too much to be told that these saving words were to be taken out. He did not think this Amendment would further the objects of trade unionists either in the House or anywhere else, indeed he did not think it would appeal to the common-sense of the people of this country. If a strike was not to be conducted in a peaceable and reasonable manner it was much to be regretted. Whether or not the words in question were necessary was a pure point of law, but from a common-sense point of view he thought labour disputes should clearly be conducted in a peaceable and reasonable manner, and it was only right that the House should express the opinion that these words should be retained. If they were deleted it would open the flood-gates to a great deal of lawlessness on the part of those who conducted

1635
strikes. It would react on both sides. Time after time when he had read this clause he had looked upon these words as the great safeguard it contained against lawlessness or against any severe methods with which trade disputes might be conducted. The Attorney-General had taken that view, and he was glad to say he had stood by his former declaration that the word "reasonable" was a necessary safeguard. If the word were left out they had the right to ask the Government to put a limitation upon the numbers of pickets. He hoped that the good sense and fairness of the Committee would lead them to reject the Amendment.
*SIR CHAELES DILKEsaid there were at present three dangers to the workmen engaged in picketing. There was the danger of being hit under the words at out molestation or obstruction; there was the danger of being hit under the word "reasonable," and there was the possible danger—which he thought was a real one—of being hit under the law of nuisance. They were all agreed as to the words "molestation" and "obstruction"the question they had now to argue was as to the other two words. He would point out that the word "reasonable" was voted against in the proceedings of the Standing Committee by five Members of the present Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground, as stated by the present Lord Chancellor, that the words were unnecessary and dangerous. He feared that in the absence of any statement on the part of the Government as to the Amendment on the word "nuisance," he should have to carry this Amendment to a division.
MR. KEIR HARDIEpointed out that what had been suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe was not that they should strike out all the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," because they were quite prepared to agree to the retention of the word "peaceably." What they said was that, in trying to amend the law, they should not leave further opportunities for thwarting the obvious will and intention of the House by placing it within the power of the magistrates to take
1636
away, by a side wind, a right conferred by the House. He submitted that all that the Attorney-General desired, and that hon. Members on his own side of the-House desired, could be met by retaining the word "peaceably" and leaving out "In a reasonable manner," which words constituted a source of real danger. If the right hon. Baronet opposite would agree that his Amendment should take that form probably it would be accepted by the Government, but if not he would suggest that the right hon. Baronet should proceed to a division.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that it was of course impossible to accept the Amendment, because the discussion had been conducted all through on the assumption—and he had met proposals of Amendments for safeguards on that very ground—that there was this provision in the Bill as it stood. If this clause were a declaration giving persons the right of picketing, which they might exercise providing they did so without violating the conditions prescribed, it was impossible that while they were exercising that right they should be doing anything illegal, because the object of the clause was to describe lawful conduct. The question whether it was proposed to picket in such a way as to cause a nuisance or a trespass must enter into the consideration whether or not the conduct was reasonable. If it was lawful conduct it could not be a nuisance or a trespass. He thought that his right hon. friend would recognise that it would not be reasonable to allow that right to be exercised without any kind of restriction. In the view of the hon. Member who had just spoken the word "peaceably" would be a sufficient restriction, but he did not think that it was any less vague or less difficult of construction than the word "reasonable." If they were to accept the view that there was to be some sort of restriction, he did not think that they could carry that view practically very much further than if they said that the assembly which was legalised under the clause must be peaceable and reasonable and must be conducted in a reasonable way. They had to face the danger of some harsh and restrictive construction being placed upon the clause, and he did not think they appreciably diminished

1637
that danger by striking out the word "reasonable." All the apprehensions that they had heard in the course of the debate were he thought ill founded, but he thought there would be a perfect feeling of security if it was provided that the powers given by the clause should be used reasonably. None of them contemplated the alternative of an unreasonable exercise of the power, and therefore they ought not to reject the proposal that the exercise should be of a reasonable character. For these reasons it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIR M AN (Mr. CALDWELL,)said the
words which he should have to put from the Chair would be that the words "peacably and in a reasonable manner" stand part of the Question. He was bound to put the Question in that form unless the Amendment was withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Permission to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
Question put, "That the words ' peaceably and in a reasonable manner ' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 305.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn SirAlex.F.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Napier, T. B.

Agnew, George William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Allen, A. Acland (Christcliurch)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norman, Henry

Astbury, John Meir

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paul, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Paulton, James Mellor

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Barlow, Peiw (Bedford)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Beale, W. P.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rickett, J. Compton

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Bertram, Julius

Haworth, Arthur A.

Robinson, S.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Henderson, J.M.(Abordeen,W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Blank, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Henry, Charles S.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brigg, John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Horniman, Emslie John

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Sears, J. E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Cameron, Robert

Jardine, Sir J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Causton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Laidlaw, Robert

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambert, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Lamont, Norman

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lupton, Arnold

Thomasson, Franklin

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thompson, J. W.H. (Somerset, E

Cleland, J. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Clough, W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Toulmin, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

M'Callum, John M.

Ure, Alexander

Corbett.C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

M'Kenna, Reginald

Verney, F. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Wallace, Robert

Crossley, William J.

Marnham, F. J.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massie, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Duckworth, James

Menzies, Walter

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Montagu, E. S.

Fell, Arthur

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ferens, T. R.

Morse, L. L.

MR. Whitelcy and Mr. J. A.

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Alphens Cleophas

Pease.

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Hazleton, Richard

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Atherley-Jones, L.

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Barnard, E. B.

Hyde, Clarendon

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Barnes, G. N.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bell, Richard

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands,.J.

Billson, Alfred

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Brace, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shackleton, David James

Brooke, Stopford

Jowett, F. W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Snowden, P.

Byles, William Pollard

Kelley, George D.

Steadman, W. C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sullivan, Donal

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crooks, William

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Thorne, William

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Vivian, Henry

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mooney, J. J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Murphy, John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Esmonde, S:r Thomas

Nicholls, George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gill, A. H.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

O'Grady J.

Hall, Frederick

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Mr. Arthur Henderson and

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Fenwick.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

*MR. BOWLESmoved to insert the words "any entrance to" after the word "near" In page 1, line 16, so that the clause should read "at or near any entrance to a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be," the object of the Amendment was simple. It was to restrict the acts contemplated by this clause, which were of an extremely wide and general nature, to the entrances of the places in regard to which they were to be allowed, and not to allow them anywhere irrespective altogether of the places in respect to which they were committed. Hon. Gentlemen would see that this clause proposed to give power to picket to obtain or communicate information or peacefully to persuade. He did not believe it was contemplated by this clause that men, either acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, should be allowed to go, expressly as he had stated, anywhere they chose. They should be restricted in some degree at any rate, and he suggested that it was a very reasonable restriction to say that they should obtain this information and peacefully per-
1640
suade where after all they might reasonably expect that their efforts might be crowned with success, namely, at the entrance of the works or house or other place. He put this forward with the view of restricting in some degree the operation of this powerful and drastic clause, and he hoped the honourable and learned Gentleman, if he was not prepared to accept it, would give some reason why these people should be allowed to go everywhere as they chose, and why they should not be restricted in the manner he suggested. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word ' near,' to insert the words ' any entrance to.' "—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he thought the word "reasonable" covered this. If men were entitled to congregate near a house they must necessarily attend near the entrance. He hoped he hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendmen
LORD R. CECILhoped after the appeal that the hon. and learned Attorney-General had made, his hon. friend would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment. He hoped he would not press it.
MR. BOWLESsaid he appreciated the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to insert after the word "person"the words "concerned in such trade dispute," the object of the Amendment was to limit the action of the clause so that it should be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union to attend peaceably and in a reasonable manner, "at or near a house or place where a person concerned in such trade dispute resides or works."That would prevent a trade union sending a picket to attend the houses of people not then concerned in the particular dispute, but who might possibly be drawn into the dispute later on. By that he meant that if a man had been engaged to take the place of a person engaged in a strike, and that man lived at a distance it would be lawful to attend at the house of that workman though it was at a great distance away. If these disputes arose largely on the question of wages it might be said that the insertion of these words would render the clause nugatory, but these disputes arose not only upon the question of wage but on a variety of other questions, as, for instance, whether a non-union man was to be employed. If a dispute arose on that ground, unless the words he moved were inserted, it would be open to the trade union men to attend at the houses of the non-union men and prevent them from earning an honest livelihood. It was perfectly well known that such disputes must arise, and his reason for moving the Amendment was that while it might be perfectly lawful and right for a trade union not to allow their men to work with non-union men if they did not desire them to do so, on the other hand it was not right to allow them to picket the houses of hundreds of
1642
non-unionist men who were not concerned in the dispute and prevent them from getting an honest living. Although he was afraid the Attorney-General would not accept it he thought the Amendment was a reasonable one; therefore he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word ' person,' to insert the words ' concerned in any such trade dispute.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the purpose of this clause was to allow certain persons to meet outside the houses of others for the purpose of peacefully persuading them in the case of a trade dispute to abstain from working or to work as the case might be. He could not accept the Amendment, as he could not imagine a person concerned in a trade dispute waiting outside the house of a person who was not concerned in that trade dispute.
LORD R. CECILsaid that if the hon. and learned Attorney-General was right as to his facts then his contention was a correct one, but the information that reached him was that in cases of dispute it was quite a common thing for the men to picket not the houses of other men but the houses of their relatives if they were not amenable. That was quite common. He did not suggest that any hon. Member of this House would countenance any such thing at all, but they must be conscious of it, because they were reasonable men and must know that cases did occur from time to time— isolated cases they might be—which they all deplored. It was clearly desirable that hon. Members below the gangway and hon. Members opposite should not permit that class of thing of which they disapproved. So long as picketing was confined to persons concerned in the dispute it was one thing, but with regard to the other matter it was quite different. There could be no object in permitting the picketing of persons not concerned in the dispute. He was also told by those who had a greater knowledge of these disputes than he pretended to that there was another practice which

1643
was not uncommon, and that was to picket the lodging-house keepers and others in whose houses the men lived. That was a very serious matter, and one that, so far as he could see, was not dealt with by this clause. These words were not purely otiose and ridiculous. They were words to which those familiar with the question attached great importance. It was an Amendment that had been singled out to him as one of the most important to this oppressive clause, and therefore he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the matter and regard it more favourably.
MR. VERNEYsaid one of the most important parts of the duty or privileges of a picket was to obtain information. Very likely he might have to go to someone not directly concerned in the dispute to obtain that information, and that part of the clause was surely not going to be left out. Moreover, he thought the phrase "concerned in the dispute" did include a large number of people not actually on strike. Many might be concerned in a dispute who were not directly concerned, and therefore he thought the Amendment proposed could not possibly be accepted.
SIR E. CARSONsaid it was entirely a matter of taste whether persons would like to have pickets outside their house or not, although they were not concerned in any dispute. The hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to think it was quite right and quite possible, and that this House ought to lay down that some person not concerned in a trade dispute ought to be picketed because information was required. He should have thought that that was a serious infringement of the liberty of the subject, and that no Act of Parliament contemplated anything of that kind. The Attorney-General took another line. He said he could not conceive a person picketing anybody else unless that person was concerned in the dispute. That was exactly contrary to the argument taken last year when he was in charge of a Labour Bill in this House. What he was then told was that it was absolutely
1644
necessary for a trade union in connection with a strike at times to interfere with others by picketing persons who were not concerned in the dispute but whom it might be desirable to get to join in the dispute. He was told that that was the whole object of the measure. That was what they on the Opposition side of the House objected to. They said that the principle which the House ought to lay down was that it should not to be allowed by that section to picket persons who were not concerned in the dispute. He thought that was a moderate Amendment and worthy of the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the country.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcalled attention to the fact that evidence was brought before the Commission—he took his information from the South Wales Daily News of November 3rd, 190a4—to the effect that when the non-unionists were found to be lodgers the women insisted upon instant notice to quit being given them, with the result that all were very shortly put out. When the Attorney-General said nobody would attend and picket the house of a person not concerned in the dispute he begged to call his attention to the fact that here was a case where they attended and picketed lodging-houses.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the words under discussion had nothing to do with the owners of lodging-houses.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid his Amendment was to prevent picketing at or near the house of a person not concerned in the trade dispute. The Attorney-General said that the words he proposed to put in were useless, because he knew of no instance in which a person would attend at or near the house of a person not concerned in the dispute. His object was to show that a person could and would so attend.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the clause he would see that it permitted picketing for the purpose of persuading a person to work or not to work. It could not be necessary to picket a man who was not concerned in. the dispute. The only object that

1645
could justify picketing was that it was intended to persuade a man who was concerned in the dispute, and he would say non-unionist men were clearly persons to whom they were entitled to go for the purpose of persuading them to work or not to work.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if this clause were passed in its present form, it would be legal for a picket to attend a lodging-house and persuade the keeper to turn out any man concerned in the trade dispute.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was only for the purpose of persuading a person to work or abstain from work; it would not apply to a lodging-house keeper.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not propose to take part in the discussion on the merits of the clause, but he wanted the Committee to understand what it was voting for. For the Attorney-General to get up and say this Amendment was absolutely ridiculous on the ground that no person would be likely to picket the house of a person not concerned in the trade dispute was hardly in accordance with the experience of a person like himself, who had had something to do with strikes.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I said for the matter of persuading.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was dealing with the first speech of the Attorney-General, in which he said there was nothing in the Amendment, because he could not conceive anyone being so foolish as to go to the house of a man who had no concern in the dispute at all. It must be perfectly well known to people who had had anything to do with strikes that isolated cases had ocurred in which persons had gone to houses for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. Even in his second speech, the Attorney-General was not putting the issue clearly and directly before the Committee. Isolated cases had occurred where pickets had gone to the houses of people not directly connected with the dispute. Take the case of a
1646
young labourer who was working and living somewhere near the works, and the picket went to the mother or father, who might live some little distance away, for the purpose of obtaining information, that being the best place to get information about the young man in question. That was a power which might or might not be right. He was not going into the merits of the dispute, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that unless this Amendment were accepted it was possible for the picket to do it. The issue before the Committee was this: if they passed this Amendment they restricted the power of pickets to go into a lodging-house or into a house where a man happened to be. That was the restrictive power of this Amendment. If they did not pass this Amendment, then the pickets had the power, not only to go to the house, or the place where the man might be, but to go to his relatives any distance away, and seek to obtain information from that man's relatives. The view had been expressed on the Opposition side that that was a power which ought to be stopped because it was liable to abuse. He was not, however, dealing with that point now. What he was protesting against was the way in which the Attorney General was dealing with the whole of the Bill. He had no right to treat the Amendment in such an off-hand fashion.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the hon. and learned Member, who apparently had come from a more heated atmosphere, and criticised his conduct to-day, had completely misapprehended the whole question. He did not seek to draw any distinction between attending for the purpose of persuasion, or for the purpose of giving or receiving information. What he wanted to point out was that it would clearly be an illegal thing for a picket to attend a house in order to exercise coercion.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman yet comprehended the point they had made. He entirely agreed with the Attorney-General that if the words, "reasonable manner" meant what he said, neither at the house of anyone concerned nor at the house of anyone unconcerned could they proceed to exercise coercion.

1647
Therefore, it necessarily followed that they could not go to the house of a person unconcerned in the trade dispute for the purpose of exercising that coercion; but what they objected to was that they could go to the house of a person unconcerned in a dispute, not for the purpose of exercising coercion but for the purposes of picketing at all. What was the justification for going to their houses? Let them leave these people alone. Let it not be possible, because
for some reason a trade union felt hostile to some person outside the dispute, that therefore they should be allowed to go down and exercise this right which would be exercised for the first time. The Amendment was one they ought to press and divide upon.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 224. (Division List No. 306.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.HnSirAlex.F.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balearres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

Balfour.Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Smith,F. E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Lord Robert Cecil and Sir

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Frederick Banbury.

NOES.

Agnew, George William.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Alden, Percy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Paneras,W

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Astbury, John Meir

Cooper, G. J.

Hazleton, Richard

Atherley-Jones, L.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crooks, William

Hills, J. W.

Barnard, E. B.

Crossley, William J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barnes, G. N.

Cullinan, J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Beale, W. P.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Hyde, Clarendon

Bell, Richard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs. Carlyon

Duckworth, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jardine, Sir J.

Bertram, Julius

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jenkins, J.

Billson, Alfred

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Elibank, Master of

Jowett, F. W.

Brace, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Brooke, Stopford

Ferens, T. R.

Kelley, George D.

Brunner,J. F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh

Ffrench, Peter

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flynn, James Christopher

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Laidlaw, Robert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Gill, A. H.

Lamont', Norman

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Cameron, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lehmann, R. C.

Causton,Rt.HnRichardKnight

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

Lewis, John Herbert

Channing, Francis Allston

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lough, Thomas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hall, Frederick

Lupton, Arnold

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Lynch, H. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cleland, J. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Clough, W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Macpherson, J. T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Radford, G. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sullivan, Donal

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Summerbell, T.

Maddison, Frederick

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mallet, Charles E.

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Thomasson, Franklin

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Richardson, A.

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

Marnham, F. J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Thorne, William

Massie, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Verney, F. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Vivian, Henry

Montagu, E. S.

Robinson, S.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Mooney, J. J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walters, John Tudor

Morse, L. L.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rose, Charles Day

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Murphy, John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Nicholls, George

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nolan, Joseph

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Norman, Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Wilkie, Alexander

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

O'Grady, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Malley, William

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Paul, Herbert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Snowden, P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Steadman, W. C.

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed, "That the Question ' That the words of the clause to the end of page 1, line 20, stand part of the clause,' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question ' That the words of the clause to the end
of page 1, line 20, stand part of the clause,' be now put "
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 307.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crooks, William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Crossley, William J.

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baker, Joseph A.(Fiasbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Duckworth, James

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Barnes, G. N.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Beale, W. P.

Clancy, John Joseph

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Elibank, Master of

Bell, Richard

Cleland, J. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fenwick, Charles

Bertram, Julius

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Billson, Alfred

Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras,W.

Ffrench, Peter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Cooper. G. J.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Brace, William

Corbett,C. H.(Sussex, E. Grist'd

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Brigg, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cowan, W. H.

Gill, A. H.

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

Goddard, Daniel Ford

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Kenna, Reginald

Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Hall, Frederick

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Halpin, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Sears, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mallet, Charles E.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T (Hawick B.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Walter

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazleton, Richard

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Snowden, P.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Mooney, J. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Steadman, W. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murphy, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Sullivan, Donal

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Summerbell, T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomasson, Franklin

Jardine, Sir J.

O Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Thorne, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

Toulmin, George

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Paul, Herbert

Vivian, Henry

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wallace, Robert

Kekewich, Sir George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Kelley, George D.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Laidlaw, Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire'

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Lamont, Norman

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Wilkie, Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lynch, H. B.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.Sir AlexF.

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hills, J. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 225 Noes, 24. (Division List No. 308.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Agnew, George William

Asquith,Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Alden, Percy

Astbury, John Meir

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Malley, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnard, F. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Paul, Herbert

Barnes, G. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Beale, W. P.

Hazleton, Richard

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

Henderson,J.M. (Aber deen,W-

Price, C.E.(Edmburgh,Central)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Henry, Charles S.

Radford, G. H.

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Higham, John Sharp

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bertram, Julius

Hills, J. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Billson, Alfred

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Brigg, John

Hyde, Clarendon

Rickett, J. Compton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Illingworth, Percy N.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brooke, Stopford

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Jacoby, James Alfred

RobertsonSir G.Scott (Bradf'rd

Burke. E. Haviland

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sidney Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rose, Charles Day

Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Channing, Francis A lston

Joyce, Michael

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

Scott,A. H (Ashton-under-Lyne

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kelley, George D.

Sears, J. E.

Clancy, John Joseph

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Seely, Major J. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shackleton, David James

Cleland, J. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Clough, W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Collins,Sir W.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Leese,Sir Joseph E.(Accrington

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

Cooper, G. J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Snowden, P.

Corbett,C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Lough, Thomas

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (chesh.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lupton, Arnold

Steadman, W. C.

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Crooks, William

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Crossley, William J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Summerbell, T.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Dickinson, W.H.(St Pancras,N.

M'Callum, John M.

Thomasson, Franklin

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Duckworth, James

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mallet, Charles E.

Verney, F. W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Vivian, Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Elibank, Master of

Massie, J.

Wallace, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, J. J.

Ward W.Dudley(Southampton

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morse, L. L.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whitehoad, Rowland

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gill, A. H.

Napier, T. B.

Wilkie, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nicholson,ChariesN.(Donca t'r

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mill)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norman, Henry

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Hall, Frederick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhonohlon)

Halpin, J.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease,

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

(O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Grady, J.

1654

1655

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peal

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Balfour, Rt Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Bowies, G. Stewart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington

*SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to insert in line 20 after "working"the words" and suck attending shall not be held to be a nuisance." He said the Amendment raised the question whether those who engage in picketing should be subject to the law of nuisance. Nuisance was an offence which could be dealt with in two different ways—a public nuisance by indictment and a private nuisance by injunction. It was by injunction that they would have to deal with it before the courts. This was the subject of a great deal of discussion before the Standing Committee, and a great deal of evidence was given in regard to it before the Commission. The principal witness on the law with relation to the subject was Mr. Askwith, K.C. Mr. Askwith's evidence extended over two or three different sittings of the Commission and was of extreme interest. In giving his original statement he said that peaceable-persuasion-picketing might be struck at as a nuisance under common law. He read the words of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Lindley to show that picketing might amount to a private nuisance, and be subject to injunction, or that it might be indicted as a public nuisance. He was examined by Mr. Arthur Cohen, who was one of the highest authorities on the subject, and in that examination he said that if peaceful persuasion was authorised by the Bill, and if a new sub-section were passed, it did not follow that it would prevent persons from taking action against picketing, and that an injunction might be obtained against workmen engaged in peaceful persuasion in respect of its being a nuisance. The matter was brought up on several subsequent occasions, and it was suggested that the Bill should contain a clause as to picketing on different lines from the clause now before the Committee, but very similar
1656
to a clause which was before the Commission in different Bills they examined. It was called Mr. Haldane's suggestion. Mr. Cohen put a whole series of questions to Mr. Askwith with regard to that suggestion. His answers were reported at page 37 of the evidence. Mr. Haldane's suggestion appeared to have been that picketing should be dealt with as a public or private nuisance, and that matter was pursued for some time. Mr. Askwith did not appear to understand the exact point put to him. He said that picketing was already a nuisance, and that those who engaged in it were liable to action for public and private nuisance, in the way both of indictment and injunction. Whether they should leave those engaged in peaceful picketing to be liable to four forms of prosecution—for molestation or obstruction, under the word "reasonably," Indictment for public nuisance, and injunction for private nuisance —was clearly a matter which ought to be raised on this clause, and it was for that reason that he ventured to move the Amendment to see what view the Government took upon it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word ' working,' to insert the words ' and such attending shall not be held to be a nuisance.'' —(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he took it that the words proposed to be left out were necessary. His right hon. friend was no doubt right in saying that picketing in the sense in which that expression was understood before the passing of the more recent legislation in regard to trade disputes was under the common law of the nature of a nuisance, and that those

1657
who engaged in it were liable to a prosecution or an action. Under the Act of 1875 the only authorisation of picketing was by way of qualification of the section which made it an unlawful act for any person to watch or beset. This Bill put picketing upon an entirely new footing. It was a distinct declaration that certain proceedings should be lawful, and it was perfectly clear if the framework of the clause was considered that any acts which came within its scope were lawful acts; and if they were lawful acts they were lawful for all purposes, and they could not say that certain acts which were lawful acts could be deemed to be a nuisance, because a nuisance was an unlawful act, and therefore they would have a contradiction in terms. It followed that any picketing which was held to be peaceable and reasonable and which was conducted with the view of exercising rights under this section would be held by a Court to be lawful and could not be held to be a nuisance. It was unnecessary to say that conduct which Parliament declared to be lawful should not be unlawful in the sense of being a nuisance.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished he could be satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney-General, but he was afraid he could not. The words of the old Act dealing with this question were fairly safe. The words were—
"Attending at or near a place where a person resides or works."
Peaceful persuasion under that clause had been held to be a nuisance. That was their difficulty. Justice Chitty stated—
'' Proof that the nuisance was peacefully to persuade other people would afford no defence for such an action."
At present, persons might be peacefully persuaded provided the method employed was not a nuisance to other people. That was the whole danger of the situation, and if these words were not accepted he was afraid they would confer certain powers by the clause which could be knocked out by a charge of nuisance.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEdrew attention to the fact that on page 11 of the Report of the Commission was set out the clause of the Bill of the Member for Spen Valley, and that clause began with the words—
" It shall be lawful."
The Commissioners added—
" although the evidence might be such as to constitute a nuisance."
They seemed to take the opposite view to the Attorney-General.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Commissioners pointed out that it might be held to be a nuisance, but if they put the word "reasonable"In, and the Court held that the right was exercised in a reasonable way, it could not be a nuisance, because if it were a nuisance it could not be reasonable.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESdiffered from the Attorney-General, and said he was perfectly clear in his own mind that the objection urged by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was well founded. The law did not authorise illegal acts. This section did not authorise illegal acts. Supposing they showed that either intimidation or a nuisance or molestation had been committed, the clause would not protect against an action. Therefore the clause was perfectly illusory and afforded no protection in respect of nuisance. The clause did nothing more than state what the existing law was, with the exception that it provided that they must also prove that the acts allowed were done in a reasonable manner. If the clause passed in its present form, therefore, trade unions would be worse off than before, because they would have to establish that picketing was conducted in a reasonable manner. He believed his right hon. friend's Amendment was good law and good sense.
MR. J. WARDgathered from the observations of the Attorney-General that he agreed that it was necessary to provide that picketing should not be treated as a nuisance, but that his contention was that the clause

1659
was already framed to meet that. But trade unionists were not satisfied that the clause as drafted did meet it. If the Attorney-General agreed with them in principle, what objection could he have to the inclusion of the words suggested in the Amendment? He hoped the question would be put to the vote and that those who at the General Election agreed
to restore trade unions to the position they occupied prior to the Taff Vale and other adverse judgments, would be found voting for the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 127. (Division List No. 309.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hall, Frederick

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)

Alden, Percy

Halpin, J.

Radford, G. H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Balcarres, Lord

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'inpt'n

Barnard, E. B.

Hazleton, Richard

Richardson, A.

Barnes, G. N.

Heary, Charles S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beale, W. P.

Higham, John Sharp

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bell, Richard

Hills, J. W.

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester

Billson, Alfred

Hudson, Walter

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Brace, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Seely, Major J. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shackleton, David James

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jenkins, J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Cameron, Robert

Joyce, Michael

Snowden, P.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kekewich, Sir George

Steadman, W. C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Kelley, George D.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cleland, J. W.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Summerbell, T.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thorne, William

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Toulmin, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Macpherson, J. T.

Verney, F. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Vivian, Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Crooks, William

Maddison, Frederick

Walters, John Tudor

Cullinan, J.

M nfield, Harry (Northants)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davies, Timothy (Fuham)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mooney, J. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilkie, Alexander

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morrell, Philip

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Murphy, John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Nicholls, George

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gill, A. H.

O'Grady, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Fenwick.

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES

Acland-Hood.Rt Hn SirAlex.F.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Agnew-Hood, Rt Sir Alex. F.

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Astbury, John Meir

Bertram, Julius

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Cheetham, John Fredrick

Balfour.Rt Hn.A. J.(CityLond.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brigg, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Banner, JohnJS. Harniood-

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barrow, Percy(Bedford)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh)

Clough, W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Robinson, S.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crossley, William J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Duckworth, James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Elibank, Master of

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Ferens, T. R.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Forster, Henry William

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mallet, Charles E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croyd on (Launceston

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Marnham, F. J

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Menzies, Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

Hamilton, Marquess of

Montagu, E. S.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morse, L. L.

Ure, Alexander

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Napier, T. B.

Valentia, Viscount

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

Wallace, Robert

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Nield, Herbert

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitehead, Rowland

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jardine, Sir J.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wiles, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rickett, J. Compton

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

MR. KEIR HARDIEdesired to ask the Chairman's ruling upon a personal matter. In the Division Lobby while the division was being taken the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chief Government Whip, sought to induce Members not to vote for the Amendment on the plea that if they did so the Government would move to report progress and certain consequences might follow. But that was a mere preliminary. The personal matter upon which he wished to ask the Chairman's ruling was that the hon. Gentleman said—
"If you vote for this Amendment you are playing this fellow's game—"
pointing to himself (Mr. Keir Hardie) when he said "this fellow." He wished to ask whether a personal remark of that kind was in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is a point of order.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: What is it then?
* THE CHAIRMAN: There is no threat of an improper character in saying
1662
that the Government would report progress in certain circumstances or in saying that "You are playing this fellow's game." It seems to me to come under the head of persuading peaceably and in a reasonable manner.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY: The description of the conversation which the hon. Member has given is absolutely correct. It was the great necessity of avoiding an accident to the Bill which made me say so, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take this incident to heart.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask why the Chief Whip does not think that as a matter of personal honour he should withdraw the offensive remark "This fellow."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: If the hon. Member thinks it offensive I will withdraw it. But it was not intended to be offensive.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERhad an Amendment on the Paper to move—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word' working,' to insert the words ' provided that nothing in this section shall make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract or to act so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of any person that violence will be used to him or his family, or damage be done to his property.' "
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment was in order, but the second part was not. It was in order down to the words "breach of contract."
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERaccordingly moved a proviso to the effect that nothing in this section should make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract. He said he wished to insert words which would make it clear that picketing should not be used for the purpose of inciting and procuring persons to break their contracts. When he had the honour of speaking on a previous occasion he pointed out that this Bill would have the effect of making it possible for pickets to incite people to break their contracts without punishment, and he thought the learned Solicitor-General dissented from that view. He then asked that words should be inserted in the Bill which would make the matter clear. He noticed that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean proposed to deal with this matter on Clause 3, and if it was left generally that a picket was allowed to solicit people to abstain from work when those people were under contract, the sentence would be ambiguous in the highest degree upon the point whether it would be unlawful to solicit persons to break their contracts. He would ask the Attorney-General whether following the declaration of the Solicitor-General he did not think it was desirable that this question should be dealt with, either in the form he suggested, or in some other and better form, in order to make it clear that the picketing and solicitation which were to be sanctioned by the clause should not be such as to procure breaches of contract.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word ' working' to insert the words ' provided that nothing in I his section shall make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract.' "—Mr. Clavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He had previously explained to the Committee why he could not do so. He did not think the Amendment would be in the interests of fair play and free speech, and it would make the application of the clause exceedingly difficult. The hon. Member for Derby told the Committee that he went down to a town in South Wales to persuade a number of railway employees, who had been recruited in the East End, not to interfere with the strike, and he made a speech to them at the station, and that it turned out, although he had no knowledge of the fact, that these men were brought down under a contract by the company, and were bound to work during the strike. He did not think this Amendment was in the interests of free speech which might be inspired by a desire to get fair play. On these considerations he had come to the conclusion that he could not accept the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he found very great difficulty in ascertaining either what was the view of the Attorney-General on this Amendment, or what was the meaning of the section. He could not say whether this section would threaten or persuade men to break their contracts or not, but he thought it was a clause that must bring very great difficulty to any tribunal before which it might come. If he were a younger lawyer than he was he would be delighted with it. He really thought they ought to make this thing clear. They were divided very sharply about this question and he did not hesitate in the least to put his own views. What was the use of passing a section in this Bill which would cost years of argument and hundreds of pounds to take it up to the House of Lords to decide exactly what this House meant to settle in this matter. If they were

1665
going to legitimise nuisance or crime or anything illegal let them say so in plain terms. As sure as this clause was passed what would happen would be that they would find these questions coming before the Courts; they would be argued at great length and the Courts would decide. The Courts might decide it in a way the Government did not intend and then they would have hon. Members coming down and saying, "It is all the fault of the. Courts who have made a law we did not intend to make." That was a very unfair thing to say of the Courts, because they put these things in such a manner that it might be fairly said to mean that one was only to persuade a man not to break a contract or to be open to the construction that the man was at once to cease work and to disregard his contract. If the Courts were asked to find out what it was this House of Commons determined they would always assume that anything that had hitherto been illegal was still illegal, unless this House said in the plainest possible terms that they intended to
alter it; the Courts could only alter it in the very narrowest way, because they would naturally say the House of Commons could not have intended to make legal that which had hitherto been illegal. He once heard a Judge when construing a section of an Act say—
"As regards this Act of Legislature I am in the position of a person trying to construe the will of an illiterate testator. I cannot make out what he meant, and he is not here for me to ask."
That was exactly the case here. If the House desired to authorise a person to break his contract it ought to say so. He was not going to argue the question, but he did say in all sincerity that there was an important and difficult question of law arising on this point, and he thought the House ought to decide the matter for itself one way or the other.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 310.)

AYES

Acland-Hood, Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon,J. (Londonderry, South

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Salter and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Cave, George

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brace, William

Cleland, J. W.

Agnew, George William Alden, Percy

Brigg, John Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clough, W. Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Brooke, Stopford

Collins.Sir Wm.J.(S. Pancras, W

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Astbury, John Meir

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cooper, G. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Corbett,C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cowan, W. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barnard, E. B.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Crooks, William

Barnes, G. N.

Cameron, Robert

Crossley, William J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Cullinan, J.

Beale, W. P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Bell, Richard

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Bellairs Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras,N.

Benn,Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bertram, Julius

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Duckworth, James

Billson, Alfred

Clancy, John Joseph

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Black, Arthur W.(Bedford shire

Clarke. C. Goddard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Charles Day

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Schwann, SirC. E. (Manchester)

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Firench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sears, J. E.

Flynn, Peter Christopher

Macdonald,J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Seaverns, J. H.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Seely, Major J. B.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macpherson, J. T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Howick B.)

Gill, A. H,

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

MaeVoigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Kenna, Reginald

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Killop, W.

Snowdon, P.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Steadman, W. C.

Halpin, J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Menzies, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sullivan, Donal

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morrell, Philip

Tonnant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Thomasson, Franklin

Hazleton, Richard

Murphy, John

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Thorne, William

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Ure, Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Verney, F. W.

Hills, J. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Vivian, Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tiperary Mid)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Wallace, Robert

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.;

Illingworth, Percy H.

Paul, Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnslcy)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Paulton, James Mellor

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Jardine, Sir J.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Weir, James Galloway

Jenkins, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire'

Johnson, John (Giteshead)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitehead, Rowland

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jowett, F. W.

Rae, Russel' (Gloucester)

Wiles, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Rees, J. D.

Wilkie, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, T. F.(Wolvorhampt'n

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson, J.M.(Tyneside)

Lambert, George

Robinson, S.

Lamont, Norman

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Lees, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Roe, Sir Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed, "That the Question ' That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 311.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Agnew, George William

Astbury, John Meir

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Barnard, E. B.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

O'Malley, William

Barnes, G. N.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Paul, Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Paulton, James Mellor

Bell, Richard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert(Staffs. Leek)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haworth, Arthur A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price,C. E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Hazleton, Richard

Radford, G. H.

Bertram, Julius

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Billson, Alfred

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Rees, J. D.

Brigg, John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Brooke, Stopford

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Brunner,J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Hyde, Clarendon

Rickett, J. Compton

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

Burnyeat, W. J. I).

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Buxton,Rt.Hu.Sydney Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jowett, F. W.

Rose, Charles Day

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Joyce, Michael

Rowlands, J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kelley, George D.

Schwann, SirC. E.(Manchester)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Scott, A.H. (Ashton underLyne

Clancy, John Joseph

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sears, J. E.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Laidlaw, Robert

Seaverns, J. H.

Cleland, J. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seely, Major J. B.

Clough, W.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cooper, G. J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lough, Thomas

Snowden, P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lupton, Arnold

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Steadman, W. C.

Crossley, William J.

Lynch, H. B.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mackarness, Frederic C

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Macpherson, J. T.

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, James

MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal,E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Callum, John M.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomasson, Franklin

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Killop, W.

Thompson,J.W.H. (Somerset, E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, William

Klibank, Master of

Mallet, Charles E.

Toulmin, George

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ure, Alexander

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Massie, J.

Vivian, Henry

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Ffrench, Peter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wallace, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Montagu, E. S.

Walters, John Tudor

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morrell, Philip

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Napier, T. B.

Weir, James Galloway

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gooch, George Peabody

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Whitehead, Rowland

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wiles, Thomas

Halpin, J.

O'Grady, J.

1670

1671

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras,S.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour,Rt Hn. A. J.(CityLond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell - (Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

(Question put, "That the Question ' That the clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Agnew, George William

Corbett,C. H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cowan, W. H.

Hills, J. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Crossley, William J.

Hudson, Walter

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cullinan, J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Issacs, Rufus Daniel

Barnes, G. N.

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Beale, W. P.

Duckworth, James

Jenkins, J.

Beaumont, W. C. B.(Hexham)

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in- Furness

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bell, Richard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Dovonp'rt

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jowett, F. W.

Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Elibank, Master of

Joyce, Micheal

Bertram, Julius

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Billson Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Fenwick, Charles

Kelley, George D.

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Kettle, Thomas Micheal

Brigg, John

Ffrench, Peter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

Laidlaw, Robert

Brooke, Stopford

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lambert, George

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont, Norman

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gill, A. H.

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lehmann, R. C.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Glover, Thomas

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Grant, Corrie

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lupton, Arnold

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hall, Frederick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Halpin, J.

Lynch, H. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Maclean, Donald

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clough, W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Callum, John M.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras, W

Hazel, Dr. A. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

M'Killop, W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Richardson, A. '

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomasson, Franklin

Marnham, F. J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E.

Massie,J.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Thorne, William

Monzies, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Toulmin, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robinson, S.

Ure, Alexander

Montagu, E. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sic Thomas

Vivian, Henry

Morrell, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morse, L. L.

Rose, Charles Day

Wallace, Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowlands, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Murphy, John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nicholls, George

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Nolan, Joseph

Sears, J. E.

Weir, James Galloway

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seaverns, J. H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O' Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Seely, Major J. B.

White, Partick (Meath, North)

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Malley, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Paul, Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilkie, Alexander

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Snowden, P.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Central

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Sleadman, W. C.

Yoxall, James Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rees, J. D.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Sullivan, Donal

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Summerbell, T.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlexF.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas,Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Harvey

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry,South

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Salter.

Cavendish, Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Clause 3:—
*MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment on page 1, line 24, to leave out the words ' contemplation or.' He could not understand why those words were placed in this clause at all. In an ordinary trade dispute any act done which interfered with the trade or employment of some person, or, what was far more important, the right of some person to dispose of his labour as he willed, now gave rise to action as a tort. It was proposed by this clause to differentiate and withdraw that kind of remedy from the person who was so interfered with. Was it necessary to extend that
1674
immunity altogether outside the four corners of an existing trade dispute, to the illimitable horizon of a contemplated trade dispute? In a former debate he said that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and the trade union leaders generally, were always contemplating trade disputes. [Cries of "No."] Since then he had had the advantage of referring to an interesting article written by the hon. Member for Leicester, published in the National Review, upon this very Bill. The hon. Member said in that article—
" A trade union is organised primarily for industrial purposes. Its essential characteristic is that of a fighting machine. No

1675
other feature it may have acquired in the course of time can be allowed to obliterate that…‥No one has any right to expect that intelligent and clear-sighted workers will be cajoled into any other view of trade unionism than that it is an engine of war performing humane and beneficent functions during peace."
He supposed that whilst a trade union was contemplating a trade dispute would be a time of industrial peace. He could understand giving power of an altogether extraordinary character to trade unions of masters and men during an industrial war, but he could not understand upon this clause any more than upon the other why they should extend those immunities, the only defence of which was that they were necessary because of the extraordinary conditions of industrial war, to a time which was admittedly one of industrial peace during which these disputes were merely in contemplation. The words were extremely wide. The view of the hon. Member for Leicester was that trade unions were engines of war.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. Member that what this clause deals with is "an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." the hon. Member is talking about trade unions, and a trade union is not a person.
*MR. BOWLEScontended that a member of a trade union was a person. The avowed policy of the clause was to apply only to a time of industrial war, and he did not understand why it should be extended to the mere contemplation of a trade dispute. He hoped the learned Attorney-General would be able to explain why this very wide extension of this principle was considered necessary.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid this clause was inserted to meet the suggestion that it would be well to give legislative effect to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Allen v. Flood. The Commissioners had themselves framed a provision even wider than that contained in the present Bill, and the words "In contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute "were a restriction
1676
which the Commissioners suggested as an improvement of the law. The majority Report stated—
"That an Act should be passed to declare that an individual shall not be liable for doing any act not in itself an actionable tort only on the ground that it is an interference with another person's trade, business, or employment."
He took that view himself. He thought the hon. Member for Norwood would acknowledge that he had discussed at considerable length the effect of the words "contemplation or" In connection with Clause 1, and in regard to this Amendment he had used much the same arguments. Consequently he had repeated the answer which he gave upon an earlier Amendment.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not want to prolong this discussion in regard to the words "contemplation or." He understood that it was not proposed to alter the law at all by this section, but the Attorney-General merely wished to make the law clear as it had been laid down in the Courts.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he remained of the same opinion, but as he did not desire to detain the Committee, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment stood in the name of Mr. Clavell Salter as follows:—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' between employers and workmen.'"
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he moved an Amendment in regard to this matter on the first clause. It was defeated by a substantial majority and he did not desire to take up the time of the Committee in moving this Amendment. The Committee would remember that on the occasion of the discussion of the other Amendment the Attorney-General admitted the necessity of defining "trade dispute," and said he would consider the matter. He did not know whether it would be convenient for the hon. and learned Gentleman now to give the definition. He thought it would be of great assistance to know what were the terms of the definition of "trade dispute" which he proposed to incorporate in the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better move, as there is nothing before the Committee.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTER: Then I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' between employers and workmen.'"—(Mr. Glavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not formally at this stage give a definition in reply to a question of this kind. He said he would do so on the Report stage, and he certainly would.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out the words '' as a tort." He did not know the meaning of the words as used here, and he did not like to assent to the inclusion of words in a Bill of this kind unless he knew what they meant. He could not understand how an act could be actionable otherwise than as a tort. He would be glad to be instructed on the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words ' as a tort.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not see how it could be actionable as a tort under this clause. He could not accept the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not know whether the Attorney-General was inclined to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice, to insert after
1678
only"the words "That it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or." If he was not pre pared to accept it he must proceed to argue it.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I am willing to accept it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he understood that from his previous speech.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, after the word 'only ' to insert the words ' that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or.' "—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD R. CECILsaid he strongly held that these words did make this a different clause indeed, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean considered it better not to explain, being an old Parliamentary hand, how far the words went. Here they were proposing to say that provided an act, which unquestionably would be actionable under other circumstances, was done in furtherance of a trade dispute, it was not to be actionable whether it was done by a trade union or anybody else. Any act done with the view of inducing another to break his contract was to be free from any action. That was a very serious proposition indeed. It would make a considerable difference in the circumstances which he thought should be actionable. It would make an enormous difference in a large number of commercial transactions.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is quite recent law.
LORD R. CECILsaid it had been law for more than half a century now. The right hon. Baronet said it was quite recent law. That only meant that it was so declared, and that the point had never arisen before. It was always the law, and that was the assumption they had to make. It was only the first time that the Courts had had it brought before them. It was an important and a far-reaching

1679
matter, and he did hope that the Attorney-General would not assent to the insertion of the words at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon.
MR. CAVEsaid this was a serious matter. He had the Report of the Commission before him, and he found that the Commission expressly negatived this very Amendment. It was directly contrary to the recommendation of the Commission, and he would suggest to the Committee that it should not be accepted without much consideration.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was not only absolutely against the recommendation of the Commission, but absolutely against the common law, and so far from it being applied merely in the case of trade disputes, it altered the whole of the general law. The matter did not stop there. It was not only against the advice of the Commissioners and the common law, but it was against the view the Attorney-General formerly expressed. The right hon. Baronet might not have been present when the Attorney-General said it was against his opinion. What he said to his hon. and learned friend a moment ago was that this clause was declaratory, and that it involved no amendment of the existing law. No one could contend that that opinion was in harmony with the acceptance of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSthought there was some confusion in regard to this matter. Surely no one would state that it was against the common law merely to induce some other person to break a contract of employment, though it was actionable to do so maliciously. This clause did not touch that. All it said was that merely to induce a person to break a contract of employment was not actionable. He should just give an instance to bring home to the mind of the Committee the distinction between the two classes of cases. He instanced a man whose daughter was engaged to be married— a promise which was a contract at
1680
common law. Suppose after the promise of marriage the father came to the conclusion that it would be very undesirable that his daughter should marry the man. There was no ground in law, nothing had happened which would justify a breach of contract in the ordinary sense, but nevertheless there were circumstances which plainly indicated to the father that it was desirable his daughter should not marry this man to whom she was engaged under a valid contract at common law, and he induced her to break the contract which she had made to marry the man; and therefore he persuaded he daughter—persuaded her with effect, which was inducing— to break the contract by refusing to marry. Thereupon, if the view of the law was as stated by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, an action could be brought by the man against the father for having unlawfully induced his daughter to break the contract. The father would say in answer, "Well, I thought it was my duty to advise my daughter to break this contract, which could not possibly lead to a happy marriage." thereupon, if the jury came to the conclusion that he acted honestly under a sense of duty, he did not believe an action could be maintained. That was an instance of inducing a person to break a contract, but it was an instance of doing it not maliciously. Again, suppose a particular work which was carried on by the men of a union was most injuriously affecting the health of the men. Thereupon the trade union leaders said to the men, "It is true you are under contract to give a month's notice, but if you wait to serve that month the result will be that you may not all be alive at the end of the month, and therefore what we advise you to do is to break your contracts and come out, and let an action be brought by the employers against us, the officials of the union, for having induced you to break your contracts."
SIR F. BANBURY: They would not do it.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he quite agreed. They would not do it, and

1681
why? Because it was only inducing a person to break a contract of employment, but if it was maliciously inducing a person to break a contract of employment then it was actionable. It had been laid down by the Courts of law that it was actionable to induce a man to break a contract if the inducement was malicious; and the Courts had said that maliciously to induce a person to break a contract meant to induce him to do it without just cause or excuse. Where, he thought, there was a difficulty —and he was afraid always must be a difficulty in the present state of our law—was to determine on which side of the law the inducement was to fall, whether it was with or without just cause or excuse. The trade union representatives would remember a case, in which this point was raised, which went to the House of Lords, when the matter was discussed at great length. The point then was in respect of the action taken by the South Wales Miners' Federation in inducing men to break their contracts of employment in order to restrict the output of coal, so that they might keep up the rate of wage, which it was their duty to maintain. The question was whether that was a malicious inducement to break a contract. There was considerable divergence of opinion on the point, which he might illustrate by saying that, in the first Court it was held that these men having acted honestly and done what they conceived was right in pursuance of their duty as members of the trade union, their action could not be held to be malicious, and the case was decided in favour of the trade union. On appeal, however, it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords that these circumstances did not afford just cause or excuse. In that case the tribunal was pressed very hard, both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, to explain what they thought would be just cause or excuse in the case of a trade union; but the Courts contented themselves with saying that in their view this particular case did not fall within the lines of being an inducement with just cause and excuse. He had only referred to these cases for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee
1682
that what they were asked to do by the insertion of these words was not to change the law unless they inserted also in that same clause the word maliciously, which the right hon. Baronet did not propose to insert, and which had not been accepted by the Attorney-General. The clause would, if it was intended to change the law, have to be so amended as to read after "only," "that it maliciously induces some other person to break a contract of employment."In his view the words proposed to be inserted would not be construed by the; Courts as changing the law, but would be held as the remaining parts of the clause admittedly were, merely declaratory of the law.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that what he understood from the hon. Gentleman was that the words made no change at all. But it had been held that if they intentionally procured a man, he did not use the word "maliciously" at all, but if they did it intentionally and without some just cause or excuse they did then give rise to something that was actionable. What he wanted to know was, was the Amendment before them not intended to cover or relieve a case where a trade union, or any person, in the course of a trade dispute intentionally brought about a breach of contract. If it was only going to cover a case where it was a breach of contract lawfully brought about, and if all these words meant was that it should be lawful hereafter to do what had hitherto been lawful, then he would not oppose the insertion of the words; but his own opinion was that there would be a very strong argument upon the words hereafter, and how it would be decided he did not think any lawyer could say.
*MR. SHACKLETONsaid that so far as the legal gentlemen were concerned they might argue the point for an hour, but he and his friends knew this matter from experience. He would give an instance which occurred to himself, and he thought the Committee would realise that this was a case which ought to be covered. In this case, after considerable delay and after every effort to bring about a settlement, they had a strike in a Lancashire

1683
town. The dispute was not about wages; it was about the quality of the material supplied to the operators. They endeavoured to get compensation for the bad material and they failed. Eventually the weavers themselves demanded that they should cease work rather than go on as they were, and the union had to consent to this and to serve notice in a proper manner. The employers immediately sent out a circular, advertised in the newspapers, and placarded the town all round to this effect—
" Wanted, weavers for—mill. Standard list of wages paid."
No operative who had been out of work for two years would refuse to rush to the firm for work where the employer had declared that the trade union rate of wages was paid. As the result of that advertisement they got the workmen. As secretary he claimed the right to call a meeting of those weavers and explained to them, "You have been brought here under a wrong impression. The dispute is not about wages at all, but about bad material, which has in effect reduced wages. We ask you to consider whether it is a fair tiling for you to come down here to take positions on information of this kind which is only part of the truth and not altogethertrue." He proceeded no further and said not another word to those weavers, but the effect of that statement of the other side of the case was that they refused to go on any longer or to assist the employer in his effort to force on the old employees bad material, and they broke the contract. They were under a contract to give seven or fourteen days notice. Was he, for simply stating the facts of the case in that way, to be held responsible as an individual? It had been held to be illegal to induce those people to break their contracts, and therefore he thought the Committee would fully realise that it was unreasonable to put them in such a position that they would be landed in serious consequences for simply stating the facts of the case. In that case, however, he left these, people to decide for themselves whether they would break the contract. He knew how risky it was under the law as it then stood and he refused to go any further than simply
1684
state the true facts. He thought they were entitled to exemption in regard to an action such as that.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had not spoken after the right hon. Baronet moved the Amendment because that very question arose in the discussion on an earlier clause. It was then stated that the doctrine of Bowen v. Hall was inapplicable in the course of such disputes as were contemplated by this Bill, and he gave the Committee some reasons for supporting that view. In the first place that doctrine, novel as it was, depended entirely upon the consideration whether the persuasion used was malicious. The ordinary cases of persuasion of which they had had illustrations in the speech just made could scarcely be held to be malicious in any fair sense of the term, although so regarded by the law; that was to say, if the men conducting the strike were fairly stating the case of labourers who had struck to labourers who were imported they could scarcely call that proceeding malicious. There were many cases in which workmen were engaged in ignorance of or under some misrepresentation of the true nature of the dispute. If the law were to put a stop to every effort at persuasion in regard to men, however numerous, who had entered into contract under misapprehension, however grave, it would be impossible that these disputes should be conducted on equal terms.
*MR. HILLSdid not think the Amendment went far enough. Even if a person induced a man to break his contract for a malicious motive and for the exclusive benefit of the person who induced the breach, he held that justice would be satisfied by giving the person whose contract was broken a right of action against the person breaking it, and not against the third person who had induced the breach. In all these disputes a great many wrongs were done for which there was no legal remedy.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after "induces" the words "otherwise than maliciously." the hon. Member for Reading had told them that the Amendment was of no practical effect,

1685
as it was covered by the law as it stood at present. Great harm was done by not making the clauses perfectly clear, and all he desired to do was to make distinct what was the opinion of the House of Commons on this point. This was not a question of a father seeking to prevent a daughter carrying out a foolish marriage contract. They were now dealing with grown-up men who were supposed to know what they were doing. Take the case of a colliery dispute. The men might go on strike because of a dispute about wages or something else. As a result the colliery might be flooded and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage done. Surely it would be absolutely wrong to sanction such a thing as that. He wished by his Amendment to introduce a safeguard against such damage as that being done to the industry of the country.
Amendment proposed to the proposed, Amendment—
"After the word 'induces' to insert the words 'otherwise than maliciously',"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that this was one of those cases in which there was a general agreement as to what ought to be done, but a difference as to how it should be done. He agreed that such action as that described by the hon. Member for Clitheroe ought not to involve a legal liability. On the other hand, he did not like to see introduced into an Act of Parliament words which, on the face of them, seemed to justify a wrongful act. A trade union official ought to be protected in making a true statement of facts; but to suggest that there were interests in the country which must be relieved from the ordinary incidence of the ordinary law was a thing repellent to every law-making assembly. All that it was desired to save would be saved by the Amendment to the Amendment, and he hoped, therefore, that favourable consideration would be given to the suggestion of his hon. friend.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the cases which had been described by the hon.
1686
Member for Clitheroe would, he feared, be held by a court of law to be cases of malicious persuasion. Gye v. Lumley was the case of an opera manager inducing a singer under contract with a rival to break her contract and enter his employ. In that case it was held that there had been a seducing of the servant of one employer to join the service of another. Bowen v. Hall was a very similar case. Supposing they had the case of a trade union secretary or representative trying to induce a number of workmen brought in from an outside district to leave their work from a feeling of camaraderie, and they had entered into contracts for some months in advance— suppose he tried to induce them to leave their employment notwithstanding their contracts. What would be the argument? It would be said that the persuasion used had a self-regarding motive and was not done upon any ethical ground or under the obligation of any family or social tie, but that it was malicious within the meaning of the law. What the Government had felt was that this word '' maliciously "under the construction it received at present would prevent operations which were almost essential to a strike and which Parliament meant to sanction. Take the illustration given by the hon. Member for Derby, who went down into the country to explain the merits of his strike to a large number of men imported by the railway company whom he wished to join the men who had struck. He was enjoined by injunction by the High Court on the ground that he was maliciously inducing them to break their contracts. Under these circumstances the conduct of a strike was exceedingly difficult.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not argue as to the meaning which the courts of law would attribute to the word "maliciously," but the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely destroyed the meaning of the English language and made the business of the House exceedingly difficult, if not ridiculous.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESthought that this was an important and debatable Amendment, and agreed with much that had been said by the Opposition. To

1687
advise a person to break a contract was an illegal act and an action would lie for it to recover damages. The only defence was a justification. That was if a person could show that from family relation or that from a fiduciary position he gave the advice, then it was justified, and then only could he escape the consequences. The word "malicious" was entirely made meaningless. It had no meaning in law in regard to a civil action except in regard to a malicious prosecution case or an action for slander or libel. Malice in an ordinary action at civil law meant nothing except that the acts should be done intentionally, because if it was done inadvertently no action would lie. Supposing A advised B to break a contract, the Court would find: quite apart from the fact whether his act was malicious or not that an action ' would lie, and the only answer was that it was done in consequence of the relation between the parties such as that of father and son, who were entitled to give advice one to the other. What the Committee had to do was to make an exception in the case of trade unions, and to say that whereas all other persons might not advise breaches of contract with impunity trade unions might so advise. [Cries of "Oh!"] He adhered to his statement, and he should like to hear any lawyer get tip and point out in what respect it was not correct. It was sought to be laid down that in the case of a trade union it was not to be illegal to induce a person to break a contract, and he said that whereas in respect of other persons who induced a person to break a contract it was actionable, if this clause passed, in the case of trade unions it would not be actionable. Now was it desirable to allow this Amendment to pass? Taking it away from the narrow point of law he thought it desirable. Undoubtedly the action of trade unions in the case of strikes was to induce persons not to enter into the employment of an employer in whose works a strike existed, and the effect might be an inducement to break a contract although it was not intended to indicate breaking of contracts as a general line of policy. A very learned Judge, Lord Cairns, drew that distinction between advice for a general policy of breaking contracts and advice
1688
for the breach of an individual contract. The trade unions naturally trod the narrow dividing line between legality and illegality, and therefore it was necessary that the law should exercise great indulgence in respect to their liabilities and actions under the law. Therefore he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean should be accepted. The question of "maliciously" did not enter into the matter at all, the point being whether there was advice to beak a contract and whether that advice could or could not be justified upon the narrow lines which the Courts had laid down.
LORD R. CECILwished to call attention to the rather strange position in which they were placed owing to the speeches of the Attorney-General and of the hon. and learned Member for Reading. He wished to ask the Government a plain question: Did they think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean unamended made any change in the present law? If it was going to make any change then it ought not to be put into this clause, because this clause had been recommended to the House as making no change in the law, and as being simply declaratory of the existing law. If the Government were, going to make any change in the law in this respect it ought not to be done in this portion of the Bill, but in a subsequent clause. If they were going to put in any change of the law here they were going to do something which they were not entitled to do. The present position appeared to be characteristic of the Government's attitude right through the Bill. They said to the Opposition, "You need not mind this: we assure you it makes no change or very little change in the existing law." then they turned to the Labour Members and said, "Now, we are giving you all that you ask." That was exactly what the Government had done in respect to this Amendment. The hon. and learned Attorney-General made a speech which might be taken either way; either that it made a change in the law or that it did not make any change in the law. But the

1689
hon. and learned Gentleman must make up his mind which horse he was going to ride. He must make up his mind as to whether this did or did not make any change in the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had grounds for his statements, but he thought he could explain the meaning of the word "malicious"In this connection. Malicious meant with an indirect motive. It was a little complicated. The meaning was settled many years ago, and at the time that it was settled that was its ordinary meaning. It was not the lawyers who changed the meaning of the word "malicious," but the ordinary public. There was a very interesting decision with regard to this, under which it was laid down that "malicious" originally meant what the lawyers attributed to it but that the ordinary people had changed its meaning. In the process of time many words had changed their meaning, but the law being conservative by tradition had stuck to the original meaning of the word. He did not think it was fair to put it in the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman put it. There must be something more than an inducement to break a contract. It must be done with some indirect motive. That was the nearest they could get to the true sense of the word "malicious."
SIR JOHN WALTON: That is not the view of Lord Herschell.
LORD R. CECILsaid he had not read his judgment, but if Lord Herschell took the other view he (Lord R. Cecil) was wrong. But his impression had always been that malicious meant some indirect motive. His objection to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was that it appeared to make a change in the law and it was put in with a view to inducing hon. Members to believe that a change in the law was made, but he believed no change was made; and that they would not get any improved position from it. The only effect of the Amendment would be that it would result in a great number of conflicting decisions which could not be settled except by the House of Lords at great expense. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he would like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General
1690
one question on this Bill. He attached more importance to this clause than to any other clause of the Bill. What he could not understand about the clause was this: when this Bill was before the last Parliament the Solicitor - General of that day differed from the present learned Attorney-General on the construction of the language of the clause. Here in this case learned counsel on both sides of the House did the same thing. He wanted to put this simple question to the hon. and learned Attorney-General: supposing that he was connected in his business with a colliery and that a strike had taken place at a colliery which did not affect his mine. The trade union thought from the nature of the case it was necessary to have a strike at the adjacent colliery which had no interest in the dispute, but was thereby drawn into it. If in any one of his collieries the union drew out his men, had they a right under this clause to call his men out without giving him the usual fourteen days notice? Because if they did, what happened? He did not say that they would do it. The trade union leaders with whom he had had to deal had always dealt with him with the greatest moderation, and owing to their moderation had saved strikes. Hon. Members opposite who had no knowledge of these matters could not understand the assistance they obtained from trade union leaders in preventing strikes. But if trade unions were allowed to draw out men without any notice what would be the result? Was it reasonable that colliery men should throw down their tools without notice? If in the course of a dispute he imported blacklegs he admitted at once that he would have no objection to their proceeding to break their contracts. But where there was no dispute between him and his men, with whom he was on the happiest of terms, then he said it was wrong. He hoped under the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give an assurance that he did not intend to adopt the language suggested on the opposite side of the House.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood the illustration of the hon. Member to be this: A strike was going on, not owing to a dispute between the hon. Member and his own workmen, but

1691
in a neighbouring colliery, and the workmen in the employ of the hon. Member agreed to strike in order to support the action of other men in the employ of other masters. If they agreed to strike, they were engaging in a secondary strike, it being due to the action of men in the employ of other masters, whose proceedings it was desired to protect. There they had one of the conditions of a trade dispute. There they had it proposed that a number of men should leave their work and the question arose whether they should leave their work without giving notice. If they did so they were liable to the process of the law. This clause proposed to enact that if these men broke their contracts and it turned out that they had been induced to break them that an action should not be brought against the persons who had induced them to break their contract. To
make that conduct actionable they must act maliciously, which either meant without just cause or with an. indirect motive. To accept the Amendment to the Amendment would make it impossible for the leaders of the trade unions to know what they could do and what they could not do, and under what different circumstances they could or could not act.
LORD R. CECIL: Does the Amendment make a change in the law or does it not?
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I say it does.
Question put, "That those words ba-there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 30; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 313.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. E.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J(CityLond.)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Marks, H.H. (Kent)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (PetersKeld

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Cecil, Lord R. Maryiebone, E.)

Nield, Herbert

Frederick Banbury and

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Mr. Cave.

NOES.

Abraham, Win. (Cork, N.E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Agnew, George William

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Crossley, Wm. J.

Alden, Percy

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cullinan, J.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dalziel, James Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Da vies, Timothy (Fulham)

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hn. Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Dickinson, W. H.(St.PancrasN.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Byles, William Pollard

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Duckworth, James

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Barnard, E. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barnes, G. N.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Esmonde, SirThomas

Beale, W. P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Essex, R. W.

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Clancy, John Joseph

Everett, R. Lacey

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fenwick, Chas.

Bell, Richard

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens.T. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, W.

Ffrench, Peter

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't

Cobbold, Felix Thomley

Flynn, James Christopher

Benn, W.(T'w'rHainlets,S.Geo.

Collins,SirW. J. (S. Pancras,W.

Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

Bertram, Julius

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Billson, Alfred

Cooper, G. J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Black, A. W. (Bedfordshire)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Brace, William

Cowan, W. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Brigg, John

Cox, Harold

Glover, Thomas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Craig, Herb. J. (Tynemouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Gooch, Gearge Peabody

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Grant, Corrie

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Mancheste

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Callum, John M.

Seaverns, J. H.

Hall, Frederick

M'Kenna, Reginald

Seely, Major J. B.

Halpin, J.

M'Killop, W.

Shackleton, David James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Hardie,J.Koir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Maddison, Frederick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Haslain, James (Derbyshire)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sinclair, Rt. Hn. John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smyth,Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Massie, J.

Snowden, P.

Hazleton, Richard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesb.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Menzies, Walter

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hodge, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sullivan, Donal

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Tennant, Sir Edwd. (Salisbury

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson,Chas. N. (Doncaster)

Thomasson, Franklin

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Thorne, William

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

Ure, Alexander

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Verney, F. W.

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Vivian, Henry

Johnon, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Parker. James (Halifax)

Wallace, Robert

Jones Win. (Carnarvonshire

Paul, Herbert

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S

Jowett, F. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward,W.Dudley(Southamp't'

Kekewich, Sir George

Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh Central)

Weir, James Galloway:

Kelley, George D.

Radford, G. H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshirt

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rees, J. D.

Wiles, Thomas

Lambert, George

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Richards,T. F.(Wolverhampt'n

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Rchardson, A.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R

Lehmann, R. C.

Rickett, J. Corapton

Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roberts, Chas. H. 'Lincoln)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lough, Thomas

Robertson,Sir G.ScottfBradfrd

Yoxall, James Henry

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr,

Lynch, H. B.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Pease.

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk Bgs.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Question put, "That the words ' that it induces some other person to break a
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255;

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Agnew, George William

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bell, Richard

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Barnard, E. B.

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Barnes, G. N.

Benn,W.(T'w'r H'mlets,S.Geo.

Astbury, John Meir

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bertram, Julius

Atherley-Jones, L.

Beale, W. P.

Billson, Alfred

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

contract of employment or be there inserted."
Noes, 30. (Division List No. 314.)

Brace, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norman, Henry

Brigg, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O' Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Brunner J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Grady, J.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Paul, Herbert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hills, J. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Buxton.Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Poarce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Radford, G. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Hyde, Clarendon

Raphael, Herbert H.

Channing, Francis Allston

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Ruf us Daniel

Rees, J. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson,R. S.

Richards.Thomas (W.Monm'th

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jacoby, James Alfred

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Clancy, John Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jenkins, J.

Riekett, J. Compton

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras,W

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf rd

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cooper, G. J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robinson, S.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Kekewich, Sir George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelley, George D.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cowan, W. H.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rose, Charles Day

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rowlands, J.

Crooks, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Crossley, William J.

Lambert, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cullinan, J.

Lamont, Norman

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Dalziel, James Henry

Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Seely, Major J. B.

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lynch, H. B.

Simon, John Allesbrook

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Elibank, Master of

Mackamess, Frederic C.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Esinonde, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Essex, R. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Snowden, P.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Stanley.Hon.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal E.)

Stoadman, W. C.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maddison, Frederick

Sullivan, Donal

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Summerbell, T.

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbert John

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Glover, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset,E.

Gooch, George Peabody

Massie, J.

Thorne, William

Grant, Corrie

Masterman, C. F. G.

Toulmin, George

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Ure, Alexander

Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

Molteno, Percy Alport

Verney, F. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, E. S.

Vivian, Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Wallace, Robert

Halpin, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walton,Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Napier, T. B.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Ward, VV. Dudley (Southampt'n

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Weir, James Galloway

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nolan, Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

1696

1697

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pease.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Du Cros, Harvey

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balearres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Pee

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Beaeh.Hn.Miohael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Thomson,W.Mitchell (Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Mirks, H. H.(Kmt)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petorsfield

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

Frederick Banbury and

Ceoil, Lord R. (Marylcbone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Mr. Cave.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out from the word "Interference "In line 26, and insert the words "In restraint of trade." What those words at the end of the clause meant he did not know, but he knew what the legal doctrine of restraint of trade meant, and the sooner it was abolished the better. It was a doctrine which was adopted when it was part of the duty of the Courts to regulate trade relations, and it was then laid down that any agreement or act that was done in restraint of trade must be on grounds of public policy wrong. He did not think it would be unreasonable for the Committee to lay down generally that in respect of trade disputes no action should be brought upon the ground only that the act complained of was in restraint of trade. That would be a beneficial alteration, and it would have considerable effect in dealing with trade unions. It would be much more intelligent than the words proposed by the Government in the latter part of this clause. He did not know what was in the mind of the Government in regard to that point. He should like the Attorney - General to explain in detail what those words meant, and mainly with the view of obtaining that information he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, to leave out from the word ' interference' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words ' in restraint of trade.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONdid not think the words which the noble Lord
1698
proposed to substitute for the words at the end of the clause were quite appropriate. This was not a question of restraint of trade. The object of this clause was to prevent its being held that conduct was unlawful merely because it tended to interfere with some other person in the conduct of his trade or business or employment, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he liked. The whole of the clause, with the exception of the last phrase, had been based upon the Report of the Commission. For these reasons he could not accept the Amendment.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that an answer on this point to the argument of the noble Lord would be found on page 30 of the Report of the Royal Commission, where there was a memorandum on Allen v. Flood by four of the Commissioners.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the words he would like to call the Attorney-General's attention to were—
" Or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills."
Those words were entirely new, as far as he was aware, in any Act of Parliament. He submitted, without going into the question of policy, that those words were too wide, and ought to be carefully considered between now and the Report stage, because they might be taken to have a very much wider meaning. The words recommended by the Commission were—
" An individual shall not be liable for doing any act not in itself an actionable tort only on the ground that it is an interference with another person's trade, business, or employment."

1699
The additional words at the end had been suggested since. It was not absolutely clear to the Committee what would be the effect of the words they were voting on, and he ventured to say that the interpretation given to the words might be a great deal wider than was now known.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not meant ask the Committee to divide on this point, but he wished to say that he was left completely in the dark as to what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. He really thought that they ought to know what these words meant. They appeared to be very wide. He could conceive of their interfering with the rights of a person to dispose of his capital. It was not easy, on the spur of the moment, to give instances, but he must say that it appeared to him that the words went very far indeed, and unless the Attorney-General could point to the kind of thing he had in his mind he really asked him not to insist on the retention of these words.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the object of these words was simply to make it clear what the nature of the interference was.
LORD R. CECILasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
SIR FBEDEEICK BANBUEYproposed the omission of the clause on the ground that it legalised boycotting. The clause had been varied from the form in which it originally stood when introduced into the House. It legalised boycotting and all sorts of steps which would cause hardship to honest people. Since the clause was introduced it had been made ten times worse by the addition of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. There was a long discussion on that Amendment, which not only added to the evils of the clause as introduced, but went very much farther, and allowed people to induce others to break their contracts. They had had a very interesting speech from an
1700
hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House who represented one of the divisions of Lancashire. He gave an instance of what might happen in the case of a dispute at a colliery, and that was ruled out of order, because it was not the question before the Committee. But it was the question before the Committee at the present moment, and as the clause stood now, the following might happen. Suppose there was a dispute at a colliery—quite a trivial dispute, something like the case of a foreman being dismissed and his reinstatement demanded by the trade union and refused by the owners—and a strike was ordered, and the business of that colliery was taken by another colliery. Possibly an arrangement might be entered into by these two collieries whereby the colliery where the strike had taken place should receive a' certain portion of the profits on the coal which would have been supplied by it had there been no strike. He could conceive of that being done by arrangement between the masters. He could conceive that as an easy way, or a very good way, of endeavouring to fight, as the masters were entitled to do. Let the Committee consider what the position would be if this clause became law. There had been a strike at Colliery A and Colliery B had supplied coal to the customers of Colliery A. The strikers found that the strike was not inflicting the injury on Colliery A which they wished to be done, and they went to the colliers employed at Colliery B and induced the men who were employed there to break their contracts and come out. They would not be liable for that act under this clause, and not only so, but owing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, it would not be possible for the owners of Colliery B to bring an action against the colliers in Colliery A. It might be said that the owners of Colliery B could bring an action against the colliers in their employment for breach of contract. But supposing there were 5,000 or 6,000 men, the owners of the colliery would have to bring an action against each of these men, and it might be that the men would not have a sufficient amount of money to pay the fine. What would

1701
be the good of taking action? The colliery proprietors would have lost their money, and gained nothing. It seemed to him that that would be a most disgraceful case, because the union interfered avowedly and admittedly from a desire to deal with certain people whose only fault was that they were not members of the union. Under this clause that would be permissible. It had been argued that the majority Report of the Commission said that it was advisable to alter the law on account of the decision which was given in the case of Allen v. Flood. Though he admitted that the members who composed the majority of the Commission were gentlemen to whose opinions and recommendations great importance and weight should be attached, there was another gentleman on the Commission who gave a very different opinion. His opinion was that in the case of workmen who did not wish to join in a strike persuasion might involve interference with their liberty of action. [Cheers] He was glad to hear that statement cheered because it was expressed in weighty words. Whatreally this clause did was to put into the hands of a trade union power to say what people might do and what they might not do. An employer, henceforth, might not conduct his business as he liked. He might not employ whom he liked, he might be boycotted by a trade union if he did not do what they told him. [An HON. MEMBER: What about employers who boycott working men?] He was not in favour of any legislation to exempt employers. If they did what was wrong they should be prosecuted. At the same time a trade union, if they did what was wrong, should be punished. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the Second Reading of the Bill, actually claimed immunity from the law for trade unions. That was really what they were wanting at the present moment. He said that was absolutely wrong. He believed that when they understood what was being done the people would not approve of the claim that was made to allow a trade union power to say that a man might not earn his living.
MR. SHACKLETON: I think the hon. Member is unfair in that statement. It was a mere slip on the part of the hon.
1702
Member, and he corrected himself immediately on attention being drawn to it.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he did not understand the hon. Gentleman to dispute the statement he made with regard to the opinion attributed to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne. He understood him to say that the hon. Member made the statement, and that he afterwards withdrew it. He was not in the House at the time, but he saw it reported in The Times newspaper, and he did not know that he withdrew it. If he had known he would not have made the remark. While he desired that trade unions should be allowed to do what was lawful in this country, and that there should be no liability put upon them which was not put upon anybody else, he objected to their being allowed to use their power to prevent people earning their livelihood in any way they chose. He objected to their being allowed to put coercion on people who were not really connected with any strike or dispute, and whose only offence was that they had business relations with one of the parties to a strike. This clause would permit of those people who were perfectly innocent being ruined and wrecked in their businesses by trade unions, and they would have no civil remedy at law. That was an unreasonable proposition, and if it were passed he was certain all the small employers of labour would regret the day that the Bill became law.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the Attorney-General had now stated that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean introduced a new principle of law, namely, that a person was allowed in a trade dispute to induce others to break their contracts in cases where they could not have done so before. If that was the law it was a very important matter in itself. He wanted the Attorney-General to reconsider that matter before the Report stage in reference to the first clause. The result of legalising any person to induce others to break contracts was also by virtue of the first clause to allow a conspiracy of persons to induce others

1703
to break contracts. That appeared to him to be a wide and serious matter. It might be a matter of little importance for an individual to induce another to break a contract, but if they were to allow a large number of persons to conspire together to get people to break contracts he thought they were passing a law the extent of which it was very hard to realise and the extent of which had not been fully considered.
MR. NIELDsaid the Amendment of which he had given notice was intended to prevent the infliction of great hardship which it was conceivable might result by reason of the large powers which trade unions would possess under the provisions of the Bill, but since his Amendment could not be moved he ventured to direct the attention of the House to the point which he desired to make. He was one of those who looked upon industrial wars as a necessity; and it was perfectly right that when overbearing employers sought to impose unfairly onerous or oppressive terms upon their workmen there should be methods by which the workmen could resist. He was not prepared to assert that in some respects the provisions of the clause were not justified by what had taken place in the past; but while in the case of a trade dispute on a matter of wages or something which concerned the management of labour where a real grievance existed, or as to the merits of which there was a bona fide dispute—there might be conceivable circumstances under which it claimed to be perfectly legitimate to induce men to break their contracts to correct what was regarded as a grave and industrial evil and independently there might also be justification for the bringing in aid what was described by the Commissioners in their Report as a sympathetic strike of workmen engaged in kindred businesses with a view to bringing the original dispute to a successful
termination, yet he was bound to protest against the application of this clause to a case which was illustrated by Quinn v. Leathern, where there was no dispute between the employer and his workmen, or any secondary or sympathetic strike, but where men were called out simply because the employer had in his employ men who were not and who did not desire to become members of a trade union. To use the powers proposed to be given by the Bill in such a case as that would be tyranny of the worst kind, and he ventured to hope that in the interests of fair dealing between masters and men some qualification would be introduced into the clause, so that a weapon should not be placed in the hands of trade unions which might be wielded to the detriment of trade and the unsettling of all questions between employers and workmen merely for the purpose of aggrandising the unions and making them compulsory instead of optional and voluntary associations such as they were at present. The very object with which this measure was introduced, so far as could be gathered, or the House could rely upon the declarations of the Government and of those hon. Members who claimed to represent Labour in that House, was that protection was only required when a bona fide dispute existed or was imminent, by that he meant a real question affecting hours or conditions of labour or the scale of pay. For those reasons there should be a proviso or qualification of the clause inserted to meet the very real danger to which he had directed attention, and he hoped that the Attorney-General would on the Report stage see the desirability of such a course.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 259. (Division List No. 315.)

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brace, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Brigg, John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor,John (Kildare, N.)

Brocklehurst, VV. B.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazelton, Richard

O'Grady, J.

Bru'mer,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Paul, Herbert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Paulton, James Mellor

Butt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hills, J. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Hodge, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Byles, William Pollard

Holden, E. Hopkinson.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Emslie John

Price. C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central

Campbell-Bannerinan, Sir H.

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Caustou.Rt.Ha.RichardKnight

Hyde, Clarendon

Rainy, A. Rolland

Chanuing, Francis Allston

Illingworth, Percy H.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson, R. S.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

Clancy, John Joseph

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rees, J. D.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jardine, Sir J.

Riehards,Thomas (W.Monmoth

Cleland, J. W.

Jenkins, J.

Richards,T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n)

Clough, W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richardson, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rickett, J. Compton

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras, W

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cooper, G. J.

Joyce, Michael

Robertson,Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.G'inst'd

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson,.1. M. (Tyneside)

Cowan, W. H.

Kelley, George D

Robinson, S.

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Laidlaw, Robert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rose, Charles Day

Crossley, William J.

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lajnont, Norman

Samuol,Herbert L. (Cleve'an i)

Davies, Timothy (Fu ham)

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Schwann,.C. Duncan (Hyde;

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Lehmann, R. C.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

I)ickinson,W.H.(S.Pancras, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sears, J. E.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Seaverns, J. H.

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Fnrness

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Dunn. A. Edward (Gamborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macphersou, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down.S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Eve, Harry Trelawuey

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fenwick, Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Snowden, P.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Killop, W.

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chcsh.)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Steadman, W. C.

Freunes, Hon. Eustace

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Foster, Rt. Hon.Sir Walter

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Freenian-Thomas, Freeman

Manfield, Harry (Nbrthants)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gill, A. H.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Stuart, James (Sunderland).

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Maniham, F. J.

Sullivan, Donal

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Summerbell, T.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gooch, George Peabody

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury

Grant, Corrie

Menzies, Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thompson, JWH. (Somerset,E.)

Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

Montagu, E.S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thorne, William

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Toulmin, George

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Ure, Alexander

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Napier, T. B.

Verney, F. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Vivian, Henry

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Nicholson, ChiarlesN.(Doncast'r

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

Wallace, Robert

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Walters, John Tudor

1706

1707

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Ward,John(Stoke-upon-Trent

Wiles, Thomas

Yoxall, James Henry

Ward,W.Dudley(Southanipt'n

Willkie, Alexander

Weir, James Galloway

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

White, J. D. (Dumbaitonshire

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

NOES.

Acland-HoocLRtHn.Sir Alex.F.

Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour,RtHn.AJ.(City Lond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

Porster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cavendish.Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Nield.

Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John J. Joicey-

Morpeth, Viscount

SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to postpone Clause 4 until after new clauses. He stated that when the new clause standing in his name had been discussed, and providing it was carried, he would ask leave to substitute it for the present Clause 4.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 4 be postponed until after new clauses."—(Sir John Walton.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the course proposed by the Attorney-General was, he thought, a very unusual one. He never remembered anything like it being done before, merely as a question of procedure. He did not complain of that, because according to his view one of the defects in the present rules of the House of Commons was that the person in charge of the Bill, be he a member of the Government or an unofficial Member, had no power to suggest the dropping of any portion of his measure until the clause had been discussed from beginning to end. He should have thought there was some doubt whether it was in order for the Attorney-General to propose a new clause, which had not yet been read a second time, while there was another clause on the Paper covering the same ground. Of course, if the Chairman ruled that was in order he had nothing more to say on that point except to protest against this clumsy method of procedure. He presumed, however, that this would be the proper time to discuss the general action
1708
of the Government in substituting a new policy for the old. He did not intend to make a long speech, but it was necessary he should say something upon a Parliamentary transaction which had very few parallels, and he anticipated many other Members on both sides of the House would be anxious to express their views on the same point. The clause they were i now asked to postpone embodied the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which, whether they approved them or not, were the recommendations of men deeply versed in one of the most difficult questions, men to whom the Law Officers of the Crown and hon. Members on both sides of the House owed a great debt of obligation for the time and labour they had devoted to the subject. The Report had behind it the declared opinion of more than one member of the Government, and he was not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not expressed in very clear language his preference for the policy of the Bill rather than that of the Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Quite true.
MR. A. J. BALFOURcontinuing, said the Secretary of State for War, whose authority upon these legal questions must carry great weight on both sides of the House, had also expressed himself with equal emphasis in favour of the original provision of the Bill and against i the new clause, which was so suddenly

1709
and unexpectedly accepted by the Government, not on the Second Reading of this Bill, but of another Bill which came on in the interval between the First and SECOND READINGs of this Bill. The Attorney-General himself had made an impassioned defence of the very proposal he was now going to desert, and against the proposal which he was now going to ask the Committee to accept. The policy of the Government had gone through an absolute reversal between the First and Second Readings, and the Attorney-General would now curse what he formerly blessed and bless what he formerly cursed. He refrained from further developing the obvious advantages which such a change of front on the part of the Government gave him. He wished to make no personal attack. He would only point out that such a change of policy on the part of the Government laid them open to ridicule, because it indicated the pliability of some members of the Government to the pressure exerted by the Labour Party. He looked with the greatest mistrust, not upon the purity of the motives of the Government, but upon the policy which, under political pressure, they had been induced to adopt. While it was natural that trade unions should press upon the Government this policy of giving protection to their fighting funds, he could not believe that it was a wise policy for the House of Commons to adopt. It was proposed to give a protection to the funds of the unions used for fighting purposes which no other funds in this country would possess. That was the root of the whole trouble. Was it right thus to abandon a principle of law of universal application? If all that was asked for by the unions was that their funds should not be liable unless there was some moral responsibility—not technical, but real responsibility—brought home to the unions, then he would be heart and soul with them. But the new clause went much further than that, and was deliberately designed to prevent trade union funds being responsible for injuries which the trade unions through their officials had deliberately intended to inflict. From their own point of view, \\ere trade unionists wise in not trying to find some other way out of their difficulty than this new clause which the
1710
Attorney-General was about to propose? He did not believe any defence had been attempted of the new clause, except the argument that these disputes between employers and employed resembled in the main a state of war and must in some aspects be even cruel or brutal like war, and that they did not make things better by hampering either of the parties by these unnecessary restraints. But were they to admit that in a civilised country disputes of this kind must be regarded as subject to a wholly different law? Were they to say that civilisation was really bankrupt when dealing with trade disputes? He could not accept so tragic a view. He could not believe that it was not within the wit of man to find some more satisfactory issue of a problem which necessarily weighed on all of them. He was not moved by the argument used by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that what the law was now going to be made was thought to be the law for many years, and that during that time no-serious evil came of it. He was quite ready, for the sake of argument at any rate, to accept both propositions. But they were legislating for a future in which the organisation both of capital and labour was likely to reach a more and more perfected form. Was it wise in face of these growing forces to abolish legislation which from time immemorial they had admitted in every other relation of life? He did not say the dangers were chiefly to be anticipated on the side of labour. Everyone who watched what was going on in other countries, and especially in the United States, knew perfectly well the anxious preoccupation which the vast combinations and accumulations of capital were causing legislators, and publicists. He did not deny that there might be difficulties in dealing with great combinations of labour, but he was certain the difficulties might be just as great in dealing with great combinations of capital. This new clause was rightly bilateral, and could only be so framed. But it was not a prospect that could be looked forward to with unmixed satisfaction. He was convinced that hon. Gentlemen representing trade unions were anxious for no more than that the interests of combinations and the protection of labour should be safeguarded and not unduly interfered with. But

1711
strikes were used in many countries not in the furtherance of trade disputes at all, but for objects wholly alien to the minds of the trade union leaders in our country. They knew what they wanted, and respected it. They knew that the trade union leaders did their very best to prevent strikes. But they were not legislating for them alone, but for all organisations, whether of capital or of labour, which might use the power of combination for any purpose. In the clause there was no limitation; it was not confined to trade disputes, but was universal. He confessed he thought the first thoughts of the Government were the best thoughts. The Government did attempt in the drafting of the Bill to deal with this problem in a moderate and statesmanlike spirit, and they had been unduly alarmed and improperly misdirected by the pressure put upon them by some of their friends. He was very sorry they had taken this course. He believed that the country generally and the trade unions themselves would really not have objected to the way in which the Bill was originally proposed. It still had the support, he understood, of some members of the Government, it was the opinion of a very large number of Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps even of some Members representing trade unions. [" No."] Well, at all events, he thought some of his arguments would appear to them to be of substance. Were they deliberately to throw aside the results of the labours of the Government, the Cabinet, the Attorney-General, the draftsman, and the Commission, which had resulted in Clause 4 as it stood in the Bill? Should they not abstain from hastily taking up the new clause on the inspiration, which appeared to have come suddenly to the Prime Minister at about three o'clock on a Friday afternoon, to accept wholesale the rather crude suggestions of the trade unions? Ought they to sacrifice interests which might prove of national importance simply because they thought, and rightly, that the present leaders of labour in this country would not abuse the powers given them? That was not true wisdom; that was not the path they ought to pursue, and he confessed that, as far as he was concerned, he could not, with the best will in the world, bring himself to believe
1712
either that the trade unions were in their own interests well advised to ask for this exceptional treatment, or that, if in spite of that view they still asked for it, the House would be well advised to give it to them. He asked that all corporations, be they what they might, should be under one common law and subject to one recognised set of obligations. There was nothing he knew of, either in regard to employed or employers, in the one as little as in the other, which made him think that there ought to be special relaxation on their behalf, and for that reason he must vote against the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that Clause 4 of the Bill should be postponed for the purpose of discussing that other and far inferior alternative which has been proposed by the Government in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a very temperate and moderate speech, and he thought he might fairly grant to him that he had not taken undue advantage of the Parliamentary situation, tempting as it undoubtedly was in some respects. But since the right hon. Gentleman had referred to him, and because he had for many years past taken a very great interest in the affairs of trade unions, he would say a few words. How did the problem become a pressing one? Everybody believed that some legislation was required to give trade unions certain advantages. During something like thirty years they would not find a case in which any Court of law had enforced, as against the funds of a trade union, liability for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of, or incident to, a trade dispute, and that state of the law was not only universally understood, but, so far as he knew, was universally acquiesced in by both masters and men, and nobody had succeeded in showing that there was any detriment to the community at large. Then came the Taff Vale decision, and that decision was preceded and accompanied by another series of decisions in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal. The application of the common law of agency to minor and subordinate agents of the trade unions, coupled with the entirely

1713
novel principle that the funds of the unions were liable to be taken into execution for their acts, produced a situation which it was necessary for statesmen to face. Then the question arose, What was the best way of bringing the law back into harmony with what everyone understood it to have been so long without injury to any party? He thought that the simplest and most practical way way of dealing with the matter was to alter the law of agency in its application to trade unions. He was not sure that he did not still think that that would have been the preferable course. There was another plan suggested—the plan embodied in the alternative clause of the Attorney-General— which was to exempt the trade unions from liability even in cases where agency was established. He would never assent himself to a proposition of that kind, unless the same law was applied to the masters as to the men. He never had been and never would be in favour of legislation which would give one set of persons in an industrial dispute an advantage over the other, which would tie the hands of one side and leave the hands of the other side free. Therefore, he could only assent to an arrangement which established perfect equality as between the combinations of masters and the combinations of men, and his objection in principle on this point was met by the alternative clause of his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. As he had said, he thought the balance of practical convenience would have been met by the adoption of the course which he had originally suggested. But he had to bear in mind two very important facts. The first was that the solution in the alternative clause commended itself to the vast majority of those concerned. That was not a decisive consideration; but it was one, that was not without weight. But a more important point was that upon the whole he had come to the conclusion—gradually he admitted—that there was less risk of actual legislation on disputed questions going to the Courts of law, passing from one stage of appeal to another, and involving loss of temper, money, and time, by adopting the perfectly simple and common-sense method embodied in the alternative clause, than if they were
1714
to lay down in regard to industrial combinations a new code of the law of agency. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that if they looked at the past conduct of the trade unions, at the nature of their present operations, and at the character, objects, and methods of their leaders, there was no real and practical danger of power of this kind being abused. For his part, he said—not for the first time and certainly not with any intention of flattering the trade unions, but simply for the sake of historical accuracy and justice—that the operations of those great combinations, since they had been freed by the law which previously held them in restraint, had been in the direction, not of industrial warfare, but of industrial peace. He said the same of the combination of employers. There was no doubt that the recognition by the law of combination, and the operation of the work of combination, in industrial matters, instead of embittering, would reconcile the relations of all parties concerned. If; as the Leader of the Opposition admitted, there was nothing in the present conduct of the trade unions to lead to an anticipation that they were likely to depart from the path of moderation they had so long pursued, why should the right hon. Gentleman frighten them with imaginary dangers of the remote future? It was because he believed it was the duty of Parliament to do everything in its power to place in a position of perfect freedom both employers and employed—freedom of combination and freedom of action within those well-understood and almost traditional limits of moderation which had always prevailed in industrial conflicts—that he should support the new clause.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he had listened with the greatest interest to the speech just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman did not exactly realise the attitude he had taken up in past years in respect to this matter. It was perfectly clear to anybody who took the trouble to look through the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the attitude he had adopted to-day was absolutely in every respect contrary to the attitude

1715
he had adopted in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had now qualified his action by stating that he wished employers to have the same opportunity as the working men of the country in respect to trade disputes. But as this question was not applicable to employers in any case it did not affect the question in any degree. He would refer the Committee again to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on February 5th, 1903. It appeared to him that if the right hon. Gentleman had that opinion in respect of this question then, he could not alter it on account of the fact that extra powers had been given to employers in regard to it. He had had a considerable amount of experience in respect of trade unions. He had had the honour and the opportunity single-handed to arrange an eight hours day for a firm of blast furnacemen. If they had to deal with leaders of trade unions in the North of England, they had to deal with men who knew their business. But he could not believe that they should give them a power which they ought not to have. He would like to put to the Committee a case in reference to this question. He was speaking a moment ago of the question of blast furnaces. Supposing a master who owned a blast furnace made arrangements with his men that on both sides a fortnight's notice should be given before the stoppage of work. A leader of the trade union came down and persuaded the men that they should go out before that fortnight was up. If they did, damage might result to the extent of £1,000, and it seemed absolutely unfair that there should be no opportunity of obtaining compensation from the men or the trade union responsible for causing that loss. Of course, it might be said that action might be taken against the men who refused to work; that was perfectly true, but in that case nothing could be obtained, and there could be no object in taking the action. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Durham, in a letter he wrote to The Times last year, said that a Bill before Parliament granted immunity entirely to trade unions for conspiracy. It must be plain to every hon. Member that this Bill also granted immunity from the law of conspiracy to every trade union in the country, and
1716
under these circumstances, he did think that at this time of the session the matter was of too much importance to be dealt with. Might he appeal to the Prime Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to take the fourth clause at the beginning of the autumn session?
MR. SHACKLETON: May I appeal to the House not to spend much time on this point, but to get to the clause itself?
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that although he was extremely anxious, so far as he could reasonably be expected, to respond to such an appeal as that which the hon. Member below the gangway had just addressed to the Committee, he ventured to think on the present occasion the application was an entirely unreasonable one, simply because, as he understood, the question they were now discussing was a matter of broad principle, which would not be open to them to discuss on subsequent Amendments. This was one of the most important and far reaching proposals laid before the House of Commons, and it was almost farcical to suggest that they should abandon the discussion on the first opportunity they had of expressing their views upon the subject. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway said it was not the Second Reading. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that they did have a Second Reading of some proposals but not of this proposal, and if they did not have a discussion similar to a Second Reading on the clause which the Attorney-General introduced, it was very necessary indeed that at some period or another there should be a general and not i detailed consideration of these proposals. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly a speech which showed very striking courage, and was marked with very great lucidity throughout. It was such as they would expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when there was a discrepancy;o be explained between what he said previously and what he said to-night. Sow far did the basis of that change rest upon Parliamentary convenience and how far did it go down to some?reat ground of principle? They were entitled, and bound to ask, what that

1717
principle was. When the clause was originally introduced it was based upon principle and only upon principle. The Attorney-General made a speech to his House, not on the spur of the moment, but a speech which he had deeply considered, and the arguments of which bore throughout the marks of careful preparation. He came down and told the House that. it was the deliberate view of the Government that the clause supported by Gentlemen below the gangway, and which he was now adopting, was practically immoral. At least, he would not deny that he told them that if these propsals were carried out they would be creating a privilege for the proletariat, giving a sort of benefit of clergy to trade unions analogous to the benefit which was formerly enjoyed by certain sections of the population. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether they were sure it was wise to remove from these agents a sense of responsibility. He said they were often swept by passion, excitement, and natural feeling, and was it right that their agents should move about with the knowledge that whatever they did was lawful? If he Attorney-General was right in saying that by giving these powers, for which no precedent had been cited, it would destroy or lessen the sense of responsibility on the part of men who had great power over others, surely they were right to-night, before adopting this new clause, to ask for some reason, for the argument which had induced the Government to change their mind. There was no single suggestion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most accomplished and ingenious lawyers in the House of Commons, explaining what it was that had induced the Government to change their mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he changed his mind because at the time he adversely criticised the proposals of the trade unions lie believed that those proposals were going to be confined to trade unions only. The answer to that was that the language in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained those proposals bore no reference at all to any question as to whether or not the privileges were, to be extended to associations of employers. The right hon. Gentleman
1718
said it was a mistake to extend privileges of this kind to any association, but he did not say whether it was an association of employers or working men. The right hon. Gentleman said that the common sense of the community would not be easily convinced that an association of persons, whether incorporated or not, made not the slightest difference, and that wielding great powers and controlling considerable sums they should not be legally answerable for the acts of agents. They were told to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although the common sense of the community would not recognise that an association of persons should have these powers, if they had two associations of persons the common sense of the community would tolerate it. That was a striking proposition from one who reinforced his observation and original criticism by pointing out that the objections were that these associations wielded great power and controlled considerable sums. He might mention a case in which the trustees of a trade union started a newspaper, the object of which was to safeguard in every possible way the interest of the trade union. Those who were responsible for that paper inserted a gross and very discreditable libel against a person with whom they conceived they had some quarrel. That person instituted proceedings and recovered damages for libel to the amount of £1,000 from the Court below. The question was raised as to whether the trustees of the trade union wore or were not, in the first place, liable to pay the £1,000, and, in the second place, whether if they were liable, they ought, or ought not to be, indemnified from the funds of the union. Was the proposition going to be contended for a moment that if the accredited and chosen representatives of a trade union published a libel at the expense of a citizen, the aggrieved person was to be deprived of his ordinary remedy at law against those who defamed his name? Was it to be suggested that he was not entitled to recover damages? If so, there should be more than the mere statement from the Government; they should have some reason afforded why those who set in motion acts which were bound to injure others should be protected from liability to compensate for those

1719
acts. Why should trade unions be protected from the consequences of action which was ex hypothesi illegal and which caused injury to other members of the community? It might be that some member of the Government had an argument which would satisfy the Committee, and if so, he hoped he would take an early opportunity of explaining what it was. They had been told that in foreign countries there was some sort of precedent to be found for this immunity. One of the hon. Members for Durham, who had a considerable knowledge of the history of this question, had pointed out in a letter to The Times that, in the case of France, they had most curiously safeguarded themselves and the general community from the absolute immunity. contained in the present proposals of the Government. France had decided that trade unions should be exempt in all cases except where the governing body had themselves authorised the illegal act in respect of which the complaint was made. So far as there was any precedent in the case of France, it was a precedent directly in favour of the arguments used on the Opposition side of the House. The Attorney-General had also quoted the case of Now South Wales, which he agreed was very useful indeed from the point of view of the present discussion, because they were dealing there with an extremely democratic community in which the rights of labour and the power of labour to enforce those rights was certainly not less fully admitted than it was in this country. The Attorney-General quoted with very great approval the circumstance that in New South Wales they could not claim any exemption for the funds of the union unless the authorities of the union were able to show—the onus being imposed upon them—that the governing body of the union were not cognisant of the illegal act and that the moment they became cognisant of it they repudiated it. If that were quoted as being right for New South Wales a few weeks ago, were they to be told that it was wrong in this country? One was driven to the conclusion that the reason, and the only reason why the Government had abandoned a determination deliberately and
1720
carefully formed, and stated with weighty arguments to this House on the Second Reading of the Government measure, was that they yielded not to argument, but to clamour from below the gangway. The hon. Member for Leicester and some of his friends were entitled to laugh, but he did not think the Government were entitled to laugh. They had their reward in a three-cornered contest at Cockermouth. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had the only claim to merriment in the Parliamentary situation. He happened to be speaking last night in the Cockermouth Division, and a circular was distributed outside the hall informing those who were coming to the meeting that he was the most bitter opponent of trade unions in the House of Commons. In opposing the immunity of trade unions one was not doing a very easy thing in a constituency where there were many trade unionists, because he knew it had already been made the subject of unfavourable comment in his constituency. He should utilise an opportunity in the autumn, however, to explain to his constituents the reason for the speech he had made; and he would at least have the consolation that he held the same views as the Government really held, having reached those views by identical processes of reasoning. He would have the, second consolation that, unlike the Government he had the courage to speak and vote for that view. Did the hon. Gentleman who was excited to such merriment think that it was a popular course to take in the country? Did he suggest that it was more popular not to vote for this clause? Because it was the more popular course the Government to-night were going publicly to repudiate the conclusions at which as a Government they arrived a few short weeks ago.
*MR. HILLSsaid that as this was the last opportunity they would have of speaking on the merits of the clause, he wished to explain shortly the reasons why he could not vote for Clause 1. The only two possible remedies were to amend the law of agency, or to give trade unions immunity. He thought by far the best way of dealing with the

1721
question was to amend the law of agency. It was of itself an exceptional piece of legislation; but still he thought it was justified. No doubt it was not half I so far-reaching as the present proposal, nor half so dangerous. He wanted to explain to the Committee what the clause did and what it did not do. It gave complete immunity to a union for any wrongful act that union might choose to do; as had already been shown, a union might in a most intentional and deliberate way utter a libel, and that libel might cause damage.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee was the postponement of Clause 4, and obviously it was not possible to go into the details of the clause.
*MR. HILLSunderstood that on this discussion they were to be able to discuss the whole merits of the new clause, and also the old clause, and to contrast them.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid in that case, when the new clause was read a second time, this discussion would have to be taken as having settled the question.
*MR. HILLSsaid he was only following the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman contrasted the two alternative remedies, and he showed the House his reasons for the course the Government were going to take. He wanted, if he could, to show better reasons against the Government remedy. This clause expressly said that no action for damages was to lie against the union, even for the union's admitted act. The thing that was ruled out was an action for damages. They had not ruled out all legal processes. They had left the 'remedy of injunction. In his opinion, of all remedies that of injunction was the most dangerous.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: On a point of order, this question of injunction is not one of the differences between the two clauses.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may contrast the policy of the clause, but he must not go into detail.
MR. JOHN WARD: Should I be in order in moving that the Question be now put?
*MR. HILLSsaid the principle raised by this clause could only be dealt with by showing the machinery of the clause.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was not a difference between the two forms.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the question of injunction was not a matter raised by the clause as amended.
*MR. HILLSsaid with all respect it was almost impossible to discuss this clause unless they discussed what it did not do as well as what it did. His great objection to it was that it was a half-way house, and ought to go much further. One reason, and the main reason, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer give of his change of view was that now the master was in the same position as the workman. That was the great reason lie had for objecting to it. Placing trade unions outside the law was much less far-ranching than the plan to put employers outside the law. If this new clause was passed they put them into a sort of debatable land, and said they were there to tight out their differences there, and flint they could not complain, because each had an equal chance. Perhaps they could not complain; but he did think that the community had a very strong right to complain. All these exceptional positions led to a very strained and dangerous state of feeling. As long as they were confined in the ordinary processes of law it was all right so far as the public were concerned.
SIR JOHN WALTON: May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in discussing this matter now? He will have an opportunity of doing so when I have moved the new clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the question of the policy of the new clause. It is

1723
unnecessary at present to go into the details of the new clause. The new clause will, of course, be examined on its merits when we come to it.
*MR. HILLSsaid that if they were to have an opportunity of discussing the new clause as a whole he would sit down gladly. What he wished to know was whether they would have an opportunity of talking on the clause as a whole.
MR. MARKHAM.: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not accept the Motion
*MR. BOWLESsaid it really seemed to him that they were in an extraordinary position indeed in connection with this proposal.
SIR.JOHN WALTON: I beg to move that, the Quest ion be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not accept the Motion.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he understood that the original policy of the Government on this matter which they now proposed to abandon was received with considerable approval, or at all events, without any considerable disapproval, by hon. Gentlemen behind the Attorney-General. But the moment after that solemnly considered policy had been announced hon. Gentlemen below the gangway expressed their dislike of it, upon which, within a short time indeed, the Government proposed absolutely to go back upon their original policy, and substitute in effect the proposal of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and they did that without having been good enough to give to the Committee a shadow or a scintilla of reason for having made this extraordinary volte face. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told then the grounds on which he personally had been induced to change his opinion. That was an interesting confession, whatever one might think of the substance of it. But it was not made on behalf of the Government.
MR. MARKHAM: On a point of order, I beg to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member has used arguments which have been repeatedly addressed to the House.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These arguments have been used repeatedly by previous speakers.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he would take care not to repeat them. All he desired to say was that he found himself in considerable difficulty if this tremendous alteration was to be made on the part of the Govern merit without the slightest reason being given. If the Attorney-General desired to offer an explanation of the Amendment he and his friends would give way, but the Motion ought not to be agreed to without some information as to the grounds on which it was proposed.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the clause at all. There is nothing in his remarks to show that he understands the clause. The Attorney-General did explain his reason for postponing the clause.
MR. CLOUGH: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not, accept the Motion.
LORD R. CECIL(who was received with cries of "Divide") said he did not intend to be put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. So far as he was concerned he desired to have some reason for the Motion which the Attorney-General had made. He should be very sorry if the action of hon. Members opposite were to compel him to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which, he believed, was the constitutional method of protesting against unauthorised interruption. It was not a course he should care to pursue unless it was absolutely necessary. The Attorney-General moved that the clause be postponed, and the only reason he gave for the Motion was that he desired to move a different clause altogether. He proposed to substitute a

1725
clause for the one at present in the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool had called attention to some of the observations which the Attorney-General made in proposing the clause. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that not only did he propose the clause, but he recommended it on the strongest possible grounds, saying that it was required by every consideration of justice and policy. But he went further, and said that it was a clause which was recommended by the responsible leaders of trade unions as a just and proper clause which ought to be inserted in the Bill. He quoted the hon. Member for Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth. The right hon. Member for Morpeth said—
"the unions should, in my opinion, frankly accept responsibility for the acts of their agents, when the agents are acting by the authority and under the direction of the executive committee."
MR. DALZIEL: I wish to ask whether the noble Lord is in order in going into the merits of the clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the only question that can be discussed is the postponement of the clause. If the clause is postponed, the merits of the new clause must be considered later on.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would endeavour to make his observations as general as possible. It was on the principle laid down by the right hon.

AYES.

Abraham, Win. (Cork, N.E.)

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Bryre,Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Agnew, George William

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S. Geo.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Alden, Percy

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buruyeat, W. J. D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bertram, Julius

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Bethell,J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Byles, William Pollard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cameron, Robert

Baker, Joseph A. (Finshury, E

Billson, Alfred

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Black,Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Charming, Francis Allston

Barnard, E. B.

Bottomley, Horatio

Cheethain, John Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Brace, William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brigg, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Brodie, H. C.

Cleland, J. W.

Bell, Richard

Brooke, Stopford

Clough, W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Collins,Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Member for Morpeth that the Attorney-General based himself when recommending the clause which he now proposed to postpone without giving a single reason to show that the condition of affairs had changed, or that his opinions had altered, with the view of omitting it from the Bill altogether, and substituting for it a provision which had been put forward as substantially in accordance with Bills introduced by hon. Members below the gangway. The Committee were not being fairly treated. He thought the Attorney-General should give some kind of reason for this change of front. It could not be merely that he was afraid of the vote and the influence of hon. Members below the gangway. At any rate, he was sure he would be the last to say in the House that that was his reason. They were entitled to some reason for this change of policy. He agreed that it was very tiresome for hon. Members to be kept waiting for their Bill, but whether they were impatient or not the Committee were entitled, quite apart from hon. Members representing labour or any fraction of the community, to know the reasons of the Attorney-General for going back from the strong views which he expressed so lately as Marsh 28th. He asked the Attorney-General, before the Question was put, to give some kind of reason for his change of attitude in the matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 310.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jowet, F. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cooper, G. J.

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Corbett, C.H.(SussexE.Grinst'd

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee'

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelley, George D.

Robertson.SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cox, Harold

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Cremer, William Randal

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crossley, William J.

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accringtou)

Rose, Charles Day

Dalziel, James Henry

Lehman, R. C.

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Paneras,S.

Lough, Thomas

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester]

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott,A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Duckworth, James

Lynch, H, B.

Sears, J. E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Elibank, Master of

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Essex, R. W.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Eve, Harry Trelawney

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fenwiek, Charles

M'Killop, W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Ferens, T. R.

M'Liren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Maddison, Frederick

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mallet, Charles E.

Snowden, P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stanley,Hon. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mirkham, Arthur Basil

Steadman, W. C.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks,G. Croydon(Launeeston)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gill, A. H.

Marnham, F. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Menzies, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gooch, George Peabody

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sullivan, Donal

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morrell, Philip

Thomasson, Franklin

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thompson.J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Hareourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Thorne, William

Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Napier, T.B.

Toulmin, George

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassctlaw)

Ure, Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Verney, F. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

Vivian, Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walters, John Tudor

Haworth, Arthur A.

O' Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Hazel, Dr. E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hazlelon, Richard

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

Weir, James Galloway

Henry, Charles S.

O'Malley, William

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hodge, John

Paul, Herbert

Whitehead, Rowland

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitelcy, J. H. (Halifax)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek

Wiles, Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

Wilkie Alexander

Hudson, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G.H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Jackson, R.S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Yoxall, James Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Jardiue, Sir J.

Rees, J. D.

Jenkins, J.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richardson, A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rickett, J. Compton

1728

1729

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark;)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Keswick, William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cave, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Clause 5 agreed to.
SIR E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General whether he had considered the effect of the language of the Trade Unions Acts, 1871 and 1876, and whether he intended to have any different definition from that contained in those Acts of the term "trade dispute." He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's inquiries in that question had gone so far that he would be able to give him an answer, but it seemed to him a very important matter.
SIR JOHN WALTONquite agreed that it would be necessary, but there would be an opportunity of considering that definition, and he thought he need not delay the Committee now.
New Clause:
*SIR JOHN WALTONin introducing a now clause (Prohibitions of actions of tort against trade unions except in special circumstances) said that he had been appealed to by the noble Lord the hon. Member for Marylebone to make some explanation of the reason why he put down this new clause on the Paper, having regard to the fact that it was a very different proposal from that which appeared in the Bill. The noble Lord was quite entitled to an explanation of that kind, and he thought he could very briefly indicate what he understood to be the reasons which brought about that change, and which certainly influenced him in regard to that change. The Bill undoubtedly proposed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, a different method of dealing With the grievance which had arisen, and of which the trade unionists complained, and he gave strong reasons for supporting it. He also pointed out the alternative method, and
1730
showed, as he thought it was his duty to show to the House, the arguments which in his opinion could be fairly urged against it, and which, when they were considered, left the advantage to the proposals which appeared in the Government Bill. But he stated, as the members of the Committee would remember, that the question was one for the House, and one for the decision of the House; and that statement was subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. That alternative was left to the House for this very obvious reason, that the two proposals were different methods of accomplishing one result. The result was the remedy of a grievance of which trade unions complained, and which had in its operation very largely diminished their funds, and had exposed their funds to further attack in the form of litigation similar to that which had been successfully brought against them. Either method would have relieved the trade unions from that evil. The one would have been, and undoubtedly was, more complete in its character than the other. The Government proposal sought to relieve them from responsibility for any action which was not expressly authorised, or effectively authorised by their governing body. On the other hand, the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne was substantially the present clause, that was to say, a proposal that no action whatever should be brought against these unions. The choice between those two methods was left to the House, and the House contained large numbers of employers of labour, and a large number of Members of very great experience, and he could not imagine a tribunal more qualified to decide whether or not the existing

1731
state of the law, as it was believed to be, should or should not continue. The real substantial proposal was this. The trade union legislation of 1871 and 1875 gave a charter to trade unions. That charter was universally construed as conferring an immunity in regard to all actions against trade unions as corporations, by means of which their funds would be made available for meeting claims for damages, and in that sense the charter had been understood for a period of thirty years. It had been generally accepted, and during its currency there were no violations of the terms on which it was granted. There was no apprehension with regard to abuses on the part of those bodies, and therefore there were thirty years of experience which would give the House very good ground for enabling it to determine whether or not that lease of immunity should be renewed. The conflict was whether they should reformulate the law with regard to the future on a correct and legal basis, or whether the existing state of things supposed to be established in 1871 should remain unaltered for an indefinite period. That was the question which the House had to decide, and the Government came to the conclusion that the decision was very clear and explicit on the matter. There was, first of all, the debate on the Government Bill, in which many hon. members below the gangway on the other side expressed their views in very strong terms, and large numbers of Members of the Liberal Party, sitting behind and below the gangway, expressed full concurrence with the views of hon. Members below the gangway on the other side; so far it was clearly the general feeling that the status quo should be left undisturbed. There were also hon. Members who sat above the gangway on the other side of the House who took that view, and who thought that the state of the law as it had existed for thirty years should continue undisturbed. Under the circumstances it seemed to him a more important matter to settle this question than to decide between two alternative proposals, against each of which there were objections and in support of each of which there were strong arguments. No less a person than the
1732
Leader of the Opposition said that he had no apprehension as to the future operation of this clause.
SIR E. CARSON: When did he say anything of the sort?
SIR JOHN WALTONreplied that on the Second Reading the Leader of the Opposition said he had full confidence in those who managed trade unions and in their moderation, although on general principles he thought it unwise to confer on any class such powers as were proposed. This clause was of a similar kind to those which had been included in previous Bills. In the first place, the Government wished to make it perfectly plain on the face of the clause that it was to be bilateral—it did not confer upon workmen a privilege that was not extended to unions of employers. Then it was provided that nothing in this clause should affect the liability of the trustees of unions to be sued in the events provided in Section 9 of the Trade Unions Act of 1871. The Government wished to protect trade union funds and make them as secure as it was possible to make them. If any hon. Member could show that any Amendment of the clause would make the funds more secure he would accept such Amendment. But while the funds of the union were to be protected, the trustees by the proviso were to be liable to sue or to be sued in any action, suit, or prosecution touching or concerning their property. They might prevent any person from trespassing on their property, pulling down their buildings, blocking up their ancient lights, or robbing their funds. All these rights could be exercised through the trustees, and there was a considerable obligation upon them of responsibility to other persons, as, for instance, if they blocked up the light of a man on the other side of the road. The trustees would remain liable under Section 9 of the Act of 1871. So far as it was consistent with the main object in view, the Government had sought to leave the status quo as little changed as possible.
New Clause:
" An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members thereof on behalf of themselves and all other

1733
members of the trade union for the recovery of damages in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any Court, provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such unions to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
*MR. BOWLES, on a point of order, asked whether the proposed new clause was not outside the "order of leave" of the Bill. The Bill was to provide for the regulation of trade unions and trade disputes, but he submitted that this clause was a provision for putting them above and beyond all regulation whatever.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the clause was outside the order of leave. It was, he thought, quite in order, and there was a similar provision in Clause 4 of the original Bill.
SIR E. CARSONdid not wonder that the hon. Member for Norwood had raised that point, because a wider exemption than was now being proposed had never been given, and he defied anyone to contradict him when he said that no precedent could be found in the whole course of the laws of this country for the clause submitted by the Attorney-General. What the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have said so as to make the thing quite complete was—
" As regards tortious or wrongful acts committed by trade unions, all the laws of the realm, whether statute or common, are hereby repealed."
That was a pretty large enactment to suggest at the end of a prolonged sitting. On the might have put it in another interesting form. He might have said—
"the King can do no wrong; neither can a trade union."
The hon. and learned Gentleman might have been even more candid. He did not see why he should not have said that on an action for an admitted wrong committed by a trade union, with admitted damage done, with
1734
admitted malice, with admitted crime causing damage, it should be in the power of the secretary of a trade union to enter a nolle prosequi, so as to prevent the law of the land being brought to play in the prevention of such acts, for that was the effect of the Attorney-General's clause. He wanted nothing more to condemn this clause than the words the Attorney-General himself used on the First Reading of the Bill, and which he had now ignominiously eaten. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought it consistent with the great office he held, and with the high position he held in his profession and in this House, to come down now and say—'I told you on a previous occasion that black was black, but now I tell you that black is white.' Anything more preposterous than the line that hid been taken by His Majesty's Government with reference to this Amendment he could hardly conceive, and it was all the more preposterous because they knew what was the claim of hon. Members below the gangway. If this was a matter which was sprung upon them and they could not go on, he could well understand the position of His Majesty's Government. But how did the matter stand? The claim was made when the Party opposite was in power for immunity of this character and for the repeal of the common law and statute law of the land with regard to trade unions. The Government had that clause before them and also the report of the Royal Commission. They had those matters before them, and they came down to this House and through the mouth of the Attorney-General denounced in language which he would not dare to use—he never laid claim to the eloquence which adorned the benches opposite and which had put them on those benches and removed himself and his friends from them although they were very glad to be got rid of—the proposal for the abolition of the rule of law that the wrong doer should be made to redress his wrong. If trade unions were exempt from this liability the Royal Commission pointed out they would form the only exception, and it would then be held to be right that vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the power they possessed to ruin others and inflict

1735
damage to the extent of many thousands of pounds and not be liable to make good that damage out of their funds. Such a policy they declared would be opposed to the very idea of law, order and justice. And what did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who was accountable to this House for law, order and justice, do? He came down and proposed a clause which in the view of the Commission was opposed to the very idea of law, order and justice. He did not envy the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Even with the emoluments of office he should be sorry to be in the place of the Attorney-General, who now proposed what he had before denounced, and which a Royal Commission declared to be opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice. [LABOUR cries of "A packed Commission; absolutely packed."] He was not picking any quarrel with hon. Members below the gangway, who had taken a perfectly consistent course. When they took up that position last year he had the honour of fighting them almost single-handed in the Committee. He fought them as hard as ever he could, and he was bound to say that they beat him even with his own Party in power, and he hoped he took his beating good-humouredly. He never pretended that he thought their proposals were otherwise than harmful, and neither for their support nor any other political support would he have put forward a proposal of this kind, which whether he was right or they were right went to the very root of the industrial prosperity of this country. He believed that nobody should be beyond the scope of the law; but although he disagreed with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway he respected their views, and he hoped they would give him credit for supporting the views which he held: he had no quarrel with them. He denied that for many years the trade unions had enjoyed this immunity. As far as there had been an absence of decisions holding them liable, it arose simply from the fact that trade unions were originally illegal associations, and therefore could neither sue nor be sued. But directly that was altered they took their place alongside ordinary corporations. [Cries
1736
of "No."] Was there any decision of the House of Commons in favour of trade unions being held immune from liability for wrongful acts to the property of others? He defied anybody to bring forward any Resolution in any such sense whatever. He admitted that the law of agency pressed very hardly against trade unions, but it also pressed hardly against every company and every individual. That law ought to be mitigated, but in favour of all classes of His Majesty's subjects, and not of one class only. The Attorney-General said that he gave the same right to masters; but they had never asked to be placed above and beyond the law. If they did he should use exactly the same argument against them as he was now using against trade unions. Why should they be placed above the law? He was not at all sure from his own observation of the trend of events that the time might not be coming, if it was not already come, when they would have to legislate against the combination and association of capital. He was not sure that the time had not come when men acquired wealth not alone for the luxury wealth might bring them but for the great power it might bring in increasing their weight and importance, or in decreasing the weight and importance of others. He was not at all sure that the time might not come when they would have to deal with that in this country; when they had combinations and associations of capital to crush out small men and to prevent that individual effort by which men rose. If that time came and if it was approaching, in this Bill were they not laying down a principle which might be injurious not merely to the question which they had under discussion to-day but in those matters which might be of vast importance to the whole commercial interest and progress of the country? If they laid down now as the Attorney-General did lay down—he said without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman foolishly laid down—this principle they were going to put these men of capital, with great power and influence in this country by reason of their wealth, beyond and above the law. But if they were going to be immune from the law outside trade disputes he could not think the time would be long in coming when

1737
they would repent of what they had done this day, so easily and so lightly, because like many other things it seemed to be plausible at first sight. But when such matters came to be worked out as between the parties they sometimes found they had really done the greatest disservice to the interests they desired to serve by placing these powers in the hands of others. The clause he supposed would be passed. He had not the least hope that anything he might say would have the least influence on anyone present. [Cheers.] He was quite prepared for those cheers, al-thought he did not want them in the least, but he was glad to have made his protest. Both to himself personally and to his constituency it mattered nothing. If he had any interest in it at all it was in the litigation which he foresaw would necessarily arise under the Bill. But he could assure the House in the observations he made he had very much higher interests at heart than those which hon. Gentlemen who cheered him had. There was one other observation he wished to make, and it was this. He knew the opponents of these proposals were represented very often in the country as desiring to subject to execution under action taken into Court the benevolent and charitable funds which trade unions possessed. For his part he should be very sorry to be associated with any such idea. These sick, benevolent and other funds which trade unions possessed he believed ought to and could be placed beyond all risks so that they might be applied to those objects for which the members of the union had subscribed. He believed that in such an amendment of the law they would be acting in strict conformity with the principles of law, because any person who held a trust fund could place that trust fund out of the reach of his ordinary creditors or obligations of the law. He wished to state most emphatically, and he believed it was the opinion of everybody who supported the view that he was putting forward, that to the fullest extent these funds, benevolent and charitable, not only might be, but ought to be set apart, so that whatever obligation or liability might be incurred by a trade union these funds should not be allowed to be made available for any purpose except that for which they had
1738
been subscribed. So far as he was concerned, and so far as hon. Members sitting behind him were concerned, they had always desired these funds to be protected. He ended where he commenced; he said that the House ought to be very careful before they put above and beyond the law any corporation or any number of individuals or any other associations of persons in this country. And when they said that trade unions might not be cast for damages in regard to an illegal or criminal act or an act against property that caused damage, they were getting rid of all the fundamental principle which the law of this country possessed, upon which, whether he be a master or a man, whether he be the head of a shipping company or a docker, or whether he be a man attempting to resist the tyranny of the mob, the liberty of every man in this country depended.
MR. SIMONsaid he was afraid it could not be palatable to all the Members of the Committee that so large a share of the discussion should have come to be taken up by the lawyers in the House. On the other hand it was unquestionably one of the matters on which litigation might arise and where in consequence those who earned their living by the law should offer their opinion on the subject. He had risen because he had noticed throughout the debate a point of view of what was supposed to be done by this new clause which, with all respect to much greater lawyers than himself, he declined to accept. The proposition put forward was that if the clause was carried they were going to put the trade unions in a position such as no other association had ever been known to occupy. Was there any reason for such a suggestion, could no one suggest other associations possessed of great funds highly organised and capable of considerable mischief, and yet whose funds could not be touched? Let them take a simple and popular instance, the Tariff Reform League, a body with great and somewhat mysterious funds, a body highly organised and capable as some thought of evil as well as good. It was possible that its funds might be used for mischievous purposes. But would

1739
anybody get up and say that if Mr. Vince was to perpetrate a tort, say publish a libel on the members of the Cobden Club, would he be jeopardising the funds of the Tariff Reform League, and that they would be liable?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, certainly.
MR. SIMONsaid he should like to see that action tried. The whole of the discussion had caused a deal of confusion; there were many bodies in England to-day with large funds at their disposal, which no lawyer would recommend anybody to sue. If hon. Members wanted to sue a West End club they had to pick out the secretary or some member of the committee, and the damages, if they got them, would come out of the pockets of those persons, and not out of the funds of the club at all. He asked whether that which was the plain state of affairs at the time trade unions became legal was to be continued in truth and in fact and be their position now. It was no answer to that observation to say that till the year 1870 trade unions were illegal associations. Since 1870, when trade unions became legal associations, these actions were not brought, and they were entitled on all sides of the House to point to the fact and to rely on it that although since 1870 it had been possible to bring such actions nobody had thought of doing so. And lawyers who spoke with such certainty now, if they had been asked ten years ago would have said such actions could not be brought. What Parliament was believed to have accomplished was acted on for a generation without any of the mischief that had been suggested would arise. There was another reason why special consideration should be given to trade unions in that matter. One need not be a lawyer to see that trade unions had very great difficulty in getting level justice in a Court. One of the matters that would be thoroughly approved of was that the clause provided that an action for damage should not be brought against a trade union, because damages were assessed by juries, and in the case of masters special juries. The Workmen's Compensation Act worked in that way. The man who was going to claim could
1740
not choose a jury. No workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act could choose a jury, because Parliament took away from them the right of getting a County Court jury. They therefore never got a jury of their own class. That was perfectly proper in order that level justice might be done, and that being so they were right in saying that if an action was brought against a trade union it ought to be left to a judge to decide. For this reason he submitted that the proposed new clause was abundantly justified. Since 1870 trade unions had conducted themselves with credit and ability, without violence, and with that good sense which was in itself the best of all reasons why they should get the protection they now asked. It sometimes appeared as if lawyers were horrified that no action could be brought. Was there, even from the lawyer's point of view, anything so wonderful about it? Three eminent Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal once declared, in Allen v. Flood, that such an action could not be brought. In determining what the law should be for the future they should not be debarred by a decision which had produced such unexpected consequences. They should legislate for the situation as they found it, and support the clause of the Attorney-General.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the point from Allen v. Flood, on which the hon. Member had rested his able speech, was no better than a technicality. Whatever might be the precise technical position of the trade unions, what was it in substance that this new clause intended to introduce into the daily life of the country? When the clause had become law a union, by direct order of its most responsible leaders and by direct action of its recognised and accredited agents, might do the worst of injury to a man through the power of its funds, and yet those funds would be exempt from making compensation. Both masters and men would only have to form themselves into a trade union and they would be raised above the law; and he looked forward with dread to what industrial warfare would be like when both parties to the dispute had been thus put above the law. What are they doing here? They were raising

1741
above the law and rendering immune every trade union in the country. What struck him about this matter was that in order to remedy that which they were told by the leaders of organised labour was their real grievance it was not necessary to do the extraordinary thing which the Hou3e was asked to do. It was said to be hard that their funds should be made liable for the reckless acts of those who should be personally liable. If it were desired to remove that grievance, surely it could have been done without making this revolutionary change. Surely they might have had special provision in reference to trade unions, that the ordinary rules of agency should be relaxed, and that it should be open to them promptly to disavow the acts of branch secretaries and persons of that kind, on which condition the union should be free from the ordinary consequences. The grievance put forward did not justify anything of the kind proposed. He spoke with real feeling when he said that he had spent all his life in helping to administer the law in this country, and perhaps those who did not belong to the great profession of the law hardly realised how lawyers felt about a suggestion of this kind, and how proud they had always been of British law, its fearlessness and purity, and, above all, its equality between man and man. They were for the first time in modern history openly setting up a privileged class of men who, when proceedings were taken against them as against any other men, would be allowed to say, "I can, do what I have done because I am a trade unionist; I belong to it trade union, and I am immune." He did not know whether to laugh or to weep, when he found a change of this kind being introduced at the outset of their career by the so-called Liberal Party.
MR. PAULsaid it was not part of his duty, and certainly not his inclination, to defend the change of policy of His Majesty's Government so admirably illustrated at an earlier period of the evening by the ingenious speech of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he had observed that sometimes a body of very clever men
1742
would do what the least clever of them would not do if left to himself, isolated from the contagion of collected wisdom. But the question they had to consider was not how this new clause came to be on the Paper, but whether it was a good clause now that it was there. He had said, for reasons which he would not repeat, that he did not believe in the general doctrine of the imperative mandate, but one of the few promises which he did give to his constituents before his election, and which be believed was given by the large majority of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, was that he would vote for the Trade Union Bill introduced into the late House of Commons by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, of which this clause embodied the most substantial part. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in approaching this question from the point of view of a lawyer, appealed to the great power which combinations had in the United States, and suggested that if they gave to workmen, and also to employers, some special privilege they might hereafter abuse it as it was abused in the United States to-day. He did not think that the greatest hindrance to business in this House was the existence of a Party system. He thought it was the too great abundance of eminent and distinguished lawyers who sat in this House, not one of whom could be found to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that a trade union was not a corporation. The eminent lawyers who sat here seemed to be too much under the influence of the knowledge of the law, which they had laboriously acquired, and which they variously interpreted, and they did not like any legislation which conflicted with what they had learnt. It was said that nothing in this country was above the law. There was one thing in this country which was above the law, however, and that was Parliament. They were here to say not what the law was, but what the law ought to be; not whether it coincided with decisions which had already been given, but whether it was in the general interest of. the community at large. How did this question come before them at all? It had a legal origin. It arose from the decision given in another place. Another

1743
place did not cease to be another place because it met in the morning instead of the afternoon, and because it consisted of four or five Members instead of twenty or thirty. 1'he impartiality of the judges in ordinary cases in which they had no interest was as undoubted as it was beneficial; but anyone who told him that a man who had all his life been interested in politics and held strong political views could altogether divest himself of politics when he sat upon the Bench, made a draft upon his credulity, which, large as his credulity was, he confessed it was unable to honour. If anybody wanted to know what an eminent and a universally respected lawyer might feel about trade unions, he recommended him to read the judgment of Lord Lindley in the Taff Vale case. They were very fond of saying here that things were not Party questions. It was his belief that if a Motion could be made in this House by the Archangel Gabriel, and if it were seconded, as it probably would be, by the hon. Member for Morpeth, it would be a Party question in less than half an hour. But he was a little surprised that any question connected with trade unions should be regarded as one of Party. Why, his hon. friends below the gangway, the Labour Members, knew perfectly well that the Conservative Party bad done quite as much for trade unions as they who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House. It was the Liberal Government of Mr. Gladstone who first gave the trade in dons their charter of freedom. It was the Government of Mr. Disraeli who improved that Act by the Act of 1875, giving them privileges which for thirty years they had universally believed in and enjoyed, and he was sure it must be a subject of great gratification to Lord Cross in his honoured old age that no one had done more for the benefit of trade unions than he. If it were proposed for the first time that a clause of this kind should be passed, and that trade unions should receive the immunity which under it they would enjoy, he could quite understand that reasonable objection might be taken; but were they to learn nothing from the experience of the past? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had told them that it was for others in the future whom they
1744
did not know and whose characters they could not conjecture. If it were not disrespectful he would say it were almost childish to remark that the course of conduct pursued for a whole generation by a large and influential body of men was not the policy their successors would pursue in the future. It was upon that practical experience of the past, and not upon any theory, ingenious or otherwise, or upon any knowledge of jurisprudence which he did not profess, that he ventured most humbly and respectfully to submit that the passing of this clause would be in the best interests of Parliament and of all classes of people in the country.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that, with regard to the legal element in this House, it was remarkable how their views really contradicted each other. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side said there were no organisations which came under the operation of the law except trade unions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the very admirable speech he gave a short time ago, said the only organisations which was above the law would be trade unions and combinations of employers. Which was right? He thought it could be said they were perfectly justified in protesting against the introduction of the new 4th Clause. If they were in want of a series of arguments to justify them in objecting to this new clause it would be found in the speech of the Attorney-General himself on the introduction of the Bill in the earlier part of this session. It was crammed full of argument and illustrations from speeches by different Members of this House to the effect that trade unions should be responsible for their actions. If that was the reason in March, he could not quite understand why it was not the reason in August, and he must say that up to the present time they had not had a sufficient reason for the complete change of front on this question. He supposed that when the Bill was introduced in the first place by the Attorney-General it was not considered by the Government. Why did the Attorney-General and the Cabinet turn right round in their view on this question? He thought this House was entitled to have a full and proper

1745
explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made another argument; he said the justification for giving this immunity to trade unions was because it was given to the employers. He thought that was a very poor argument. In the first place the employers had never asked for it, and they did not desire the privileges which this clause gave them. Besides, the conditions were not the same between the employer on the one side and the employee on the other. It all resolved itself into a question of damages. As he understood this Bill, they could not approach the trade union collectively. They could approach a working man individually. But what chance was there of getting damages from a working man individually? Supposing 2,000 workmen employed by a master stopped working at a given time; could the master summon those 2,000 before a magistrate? The idea was absurd.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that was precisely what was done in a South Wales case.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that, generally speaking, the idea was absurd. In the case of an employer of labour thousands of pounds were often at stake, and sometimes the very existence of a firm. He could imagine cases where the action of a trade union would inflict untold injury upon the employer, and to say that on that account the employers were to stand on the same basis as the workmen was a misstatement and misapplication altogether. The conditions were not the same and they could not make them the same, and therefore, to say that they conferred these privileges on the working men because they were given to the employers under the same conditions was merely playing with words. It was a proposal to put one section of the community above the law of the country. He thought they should view with concern any proposal to alter the law in such a way as to put any section of the people above the law of the land. He was afraid that any legislation of that kind would be prejudicial to the general interest.
*MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid he found in going about the country that the Taff Vale judgment had dealt a blow at the trade unions, and particularly the smaller ones, which was barely realised by the House, In some cases, subscriptions had fallen off, and the membership had declined. If there had not been hope of redress from this House he had little doubt that the decline would have been still more marked and would have ultimately threatened the existence of some of the unions. Nothing could be more disastrous for the country at large than that these unions should not continue to be representative of the trades for which they spoke. No intelligent employer of experience would clef ire to revert to the state of things of forty or fifty years ago, and be compelled to make terms with a mass of unorganised labour. That often meant an agreement with one set of men, and a repudiation of that agreement on the part of the others. Under such conditions employers would suffer far more than if there were a recognised leadership at the disposal of the men. He was arguing the question on the basis of expediency, as this House was really called upon to decide a practical issue. In dealing with the clause from the legal point of view, it must lie remembered that there was always the right of action against an individual member of the union. Personal responsibility had not been cancelled. The man who broke the law could be made answerable for his misdeeds. In his opinion, the continued existence of the unions of this country depended upon the protection of their funds. He had heard workmen say more than once that they would not continue to subscribe at personal sacrifice if the money so contributed was to be confiscated by the lawyers, or to go as technical damages. Whatever might be its opinion in the abstract, was the House prepared to witness the gradual decay of these great labour associations as the result of the Talf Vale judgment? he urged that they were justified in passing the clause on the ground of common sense, and he believed that neither workmen nor employers would be a party to a scandalous misuse of their immunity.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 29, (Division List No. 317.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.K.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Agnew, George William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch, H. B.

Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald J. R. (Leicester)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Astbury, John Heir

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Maclean, Donald

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh,(Charles (Donegal, E.)

Barnard, E. B.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Callum, John M.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Beale, W. P.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Killop, W.

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Gill, A. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Bell, Richard

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mallet, Charles E.

Bellairs, Carlyon.

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Gooch, George Peabody

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Berridge, T. D. H.

Grant, Corrie

Marnham, F. J.

Bertram, Julius

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bethell J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Menzies, Walter

Billson, Alfred

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, E. S.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Brigg, John

Hardy, George A, (Suffolk)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Murphy, John

Brodie, H. C

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Napier, T. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast')

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nolan, Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norman, Henry

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Kendal fTipperary Mid.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Byles, William Pollard

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cameron, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

O'Grady, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Malley, William

Channing, Francis Allston

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paul, Herbert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Clancy, John Joseph

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Cleland, J. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clough, W.

Jackson, R. S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Collins, Sir W. J.(St. Pancras, W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jenkins, J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cooper, G. J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Cowan, W. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Rees, J. D.

Cox, Harold

Joyce, Michael

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cremer, William Randal

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Rickets, J. Compton

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras. N.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Duckworth, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowden

1748

1749

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

Steadman, W. C.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Rowlands, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Weir, James Galloway

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Sears, J. E.

Sullivan, Donal

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J.H.

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Wilkie, Alexander

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thompson, J. W.H. (Somerset, E)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thorne. William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Toulmin, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ure, Alexander

Yoxall, James Henry

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Verney, F. W.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Vivian, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim. S.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

Snowden, P.

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Cavendish,,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Keswick, William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

and Viscount Valentia.

MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved, in line 1, after "union," To insert "or any branch thereof."
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause.
"In line 1, after the word ' union,' to insert the words ' or any branch thereof.' "—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR E. CARSONasked what was the effect of the Amendment?
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid many branches were themselves unions. He thought they came within the definition of a union, but to remove all doubt it was thought desirable to insert the words proposed. It they were to protect trades unions they should protect the branches.
LORD R. CECILasked whether this would include any branches which were not unions.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid it was intended to cover the case of a branch which was a constituent part of a union, but which under Section 7 of the Act of 1871 was not a separate and distinct union. If it were a separate and distinct union it would come within the clause as drafted.
LORD R. CECILthought they were entitled to know what exactly the Attorney-General meant. He only accepted the Amendment because he thought all branches were unions. The hon. Member had told them that some branches were not unions.
Question put, and agreed to.
SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved in line 2, after "members" To insert "or officials." He said the point in these words was a very simple one. Representative actions brought against mere members were prohibited by the words of the section, but he doubted whether representative actions brought against officers of a

1751
union as such, were prohibited. It was to remove that doubt he moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved, in line 2, after "all," To insert "or any." He said these words were consequential upon the acceptance of the Amendment as to branches.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause.
"In line 2, after the word 'all,' to insert the words 'or any.'"—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member had not explained his object in moving this Amendment. Did he propose to render members of a trade union immune from any acts they might personally commit?
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sufficient knowledge of the law to appreciate the precise effect of the words, which are governed by the words "on behalf of the union."
SIR E. CARSON: When you bring an action by selected individuals who represent the union they represent the whole union. I cannot see what meaning there is in saying "To represent any of the union."
LORD R. CECILsaid the Amendment went a great deal further than the hon. Member supposed. The effect of it would be that if an action were brought against one man for something he had done and he had done it on behalf of himself or two other men the action could not be entertained. The whole object of the clause was to protect trade unions against actions arising out of unauthorised or rash acts of individual members; and the point was that the whole funds of the union ought to be safeguarded from actions at law. But this Amendment went much further and safeguarded against actions being brought not only against the union, but against any member thereof on behalf of himself or others.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid the noble Lord was under a misapprehension. There was nothing in the clause or in his Amendment which would prohibit a representative action against one or more individuals selected to represent a number of other individuals for the acts which they were supposed to have committed. What was sought to be prohibited was an action against certain individuals selected when it was alleged that the acton was done on behalf of the society. It was to prevent action against the corpus of the society or any part of it by means of a representative action.
SIR JOHN WALTONpointed out that the wording proposed would make the clause read rather awkwardly, and suggested that the matter should be allowed to stand over until the Report stage.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSassented.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved, in line 3, to leave out from "union" To "shall" In line 5. He said the object of the Amendment was both to simplify the clause by getting rid of words of limitation and also to deal with the point of injunctions. The clause as it stood did not stop an action for injunction against a union or against the trustees. The word tortious which this Amendment would omit was a word of limitation and would not have been used except for the purpose of excluding certain actions which were conceivable, although they would not come under the word tortious or tort. Did the Government intend execution to issue against trade union funds in any case? The Government words did not seem to him to be clear on that point. Were the Government confident that their words would prevent execution issuing against the funds of trade unions in all cases, and if so why was it necessary to limit the clause by the word tortious? He should have thought it would be far simpler to exempt the funds altogether and absolutely.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
"In line 3, to leave out the words from the word ' union' to the word ' shall' in line 5."— (Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to ' tortious ' in line 4, stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman's first point to be whether it was intended by this clause to leave trade unions open to be sued in actions of contract.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I put it generally.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid hg did not know any action which, if this clause became law, could be brought against trade unions as such. He could not understand how an action for breach of contract could be brought against a trade union as such under Clause 9 of the Act of 1871. It would have to be against the trustees of the union in whom the funds were vested. With regard to the question of a tortious act, he gathered the effect of the clause would certainly be to exempt the funds from any liability for execution of any sort in such an action; because it said no such action could be brought and therefore no judgment could follow. With regard to injunctions, the object of the clause was to safeguard the funds of the union and in an action for an injunction there was no attempt to claim damages from the funds of the union. Such an action was brought to restrain the commission of an act. He would think it unwise to take any action in the nature of an injunction in such a case, because an injunction, to be effectual, must be in the nature of an action against an individual. He did not think an application for an injunction could be made effective; it could only be effective if against an individual.
MR. J. WARDsaid that as far as he could discover there was only a limitation in regard to the recovery of damages against a trade union, but he thought that there were many actions against
1754
those bodies which were not for the recovery of damages. Consequently he thought the Attorney-General would see that if he wished to make the funds of trade unions absolutely immune from litigation it was necessary to remove the words, "for the recovery of damages," which, having regard to the admissions of the Attorney-General, seem to him to be dangerous and sinister. The Attorney-General had explained that an injunction would be applied for and obtained against individuals, but said that the Court might as a matter of form name the union with those individuals. If after all this discussion and full reflection that represented the state of affairs, it was a very serious matter indeed for the trade unions, and he would advise that these words "for the recovery of damages" should be left out of the clause. He could imagine actions to obtain an injunction in which costs would be piled up and as the trade unions would have to indemnify the trustees for the costs of the defence, they would be just as much endangered under these conditions as they were at the present time.
MR. CAVEsaid this was a very important Amendment, and he thought the Committee ought to understand what it meant. It meant that the trade unions could not be sued for damages for fraud or wrong or violence of any kind. The Amendment proposed that a trade union could not be sued for breach of contract. He could see no reason why a contract should not be entered into by a union through its agent, but under this provision, if a union entered into a contract with anybody and broke it, the other party to the contract would have no remedy against the union. The Amendment went a step further. If a union, through its agents, threatened an act of trespass or violence or other wrong, no Court was allowed to grant an injunction to prevent that wrong being committed. The result of the Amendment would be to free a union from all the consequences of a wrong or breach of contract, and from the possibility of being restrained if they had committed, or contemplated committing, a wrong. Personally, he agreed

1755
with much that had been said about the good work that unions had done, but it was wholly impossible for him, or any one who thought with him, to agree to the present proposition. It was an innovation in our laws and a grave injustice, not only to employers, but to all persons who had dealings with unions or suffered from wrong committed by them, and he could not conceive that this Committee would agree to extend the clause in such a manner as was now proposed.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsuggested that it would be convenient to the House if they disposed of the question as to the recovery of damages, which raised the question of injunction, before they came to the question of dealing with tortious acts. The Amendment in his name had simply to do with the recovery of damages.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had put the Question in the ordinary way, but if something else was wanted the right hon. Baronet might withdraw his Amendment.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that what his right hon. friend wished to ascertain, and as to which they had not yet had a sufficient and satisfactory answer, was this: Supposing a trade union committed by its agents a wrongful act, such as paying money in support of a strike, or for picketing, or taking steps to induce men not to enter into the service of an employer, would it be possible for the employer to apply to the Court for an injunction to restrain the union from paying strike pay or for picketing or taking other similar action? Upon that they had no assurance from the Attorney-General. He thought he need hardly point out that the consequences of an injunction of that character might be far more disastrous to a trade union and its policy than an action to recover damages. With regard to the stopping of strike pay he thought hon. Members would agree with him that it would probably be a somewhat difficult operation. Undoubtedly in several actions which had been brought
1756
against trade unions one of the claims had been for an injunction to restrain the payment of strike pay. In a recent case in which he was concerned the Court-indicated that it would be very difficult, although under certain circumstances it might be possible, to issue an injunction to restrain strike pay. But no decision had ever been given restraining the payment of strike pay. It would probably be desirable that his right hon. friend should not press this Amendment. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter until the Report stage to enable the Attorney-General to see whether any change could be made.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he was not quite certain what course was going to be adopted, but as his proposal on the Paper was also involved in this Amendment he would like to detain the Committee for a few minutes. There had been a genuine attempt made to meet the demand made by organised labour, but by putting in this qualification and limitation the Attorney-General was falling a long way short of what it was understood the Government were pledged to do. They understood the Government to be pledged to place the unions in the position which they were understood to occupy prior to the decision in the Taff Vale case, and he respectfully suggested to the Attorney-General in this connection that he had entirely missed the point for which they had been contending. The whole question was whether a union as such was or was not a suable entity. Up to the time of Mr. Justice Farwell's decision a trade union was in precisely the position of any voluntary association that they could neither proceed by injunction nor bring an action for the recovery of damages. They were now altering so much of the Taff Vale decision as related to the recovery of damages and putting into the hands of employers, a weapon which, when fully utilised, would be found to be ten times more dangerous to the trade unions of this country than any action for the recovery of damages could be. It had not been suggested that an action for an injunction to restrain the trustees of a union at the instance of that union should be prohibited. That came within the ordinary rule of breach of trust, and could be

1757
restrained in the ordinary way. No one suggested that they should prohibit an injunction against individuals, whether they were secretaries of trade unions or pickets, or whatever they were, who committed wrongful acts. What trade unionists did urge was that all actions against the corpus of trade unions as such should be prohibited. An injunction might be issued against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for certain acts in South Wales. It issued against the organisation, which had ramifications throughout the United Kingdom. By the terms of the injunction, every branch, and the officials of every branch, of a society would be restrained from doing certain acts of which those persons might not have the slightest knowledge, and then when it was found that they had committed breaches of the injunction the union would be in the position of having committed a contempt of Court. He respectfully suggested to the learned Attorney-General that everything he wanted to do was done by leaving the injunction against individuals who were wrong doers, and that he should not make the Bill provide for the injunction to issue at large against trade unions. He need not weary the Committee by going into particulars, but there were conceivable circumstances — cases had come under his own notice —where an employer would get an injunction at the very threshold of a strike by alleging all sorts of things against the society. The injunction would prohibit the society from paying strike pay as being a means of inducing and procuring an unlawful act. In that way at the very threshold a strike might be crushed. He hoped that for the sake of the reputation of the Liberal Party, and for the sake of this Liberal Government, the Amendment would be accepted in so far as it allowed the prohibition of actions for injunctions against societies. If that was not done now there would be action after action in the law Courts showing how disastrous the rejection of this Amendment had been, and when the General Election took place, perhaps five years hence, it would be in the mouth of the working classes to show how they trusted the Liberals, and they would
1758
have the working classes doing with the Liberals of that time as they had done with the Tories.
MR. LYTTELTONassumed, as no answer had been made to the speech just delivered, that the Government adhered to their clause. Was that correct? The Government should inform the Committee what decision they were going to take on this very important point. Was it going to be another surrender? If it was he trusted that hon. Members would now once and for all make up their minds as to the validity of the decisions the Government had given, and the pretensions they had made in regard to this subject. They had said, and though they (the Opposition) voted against it they understood it perfectly well, that they wished to keep the funds of the trade unions immune in respect of the unauthorised acts of agents over whom the unions had not sufficient control. The Government did not wish to sanction illegality but only to preserve the union funds. But if this Amendment was accepted it would be in the power of any member of a union not merely to commit violence and fraud, or to conspire to do violence or to defraud, but to continue to do so not with standing that everybody knew what he was doing. The Courts would be powerless to restrain him. He would earnestly appeal to the Labour Members as to whether they wished at the very outset of their power in this Parliament to actually authorise the doing of perpetual wrong, because, if this Amendment was passed, actions which were against every right principle, actions which every person of right feeling would condemn, might be continued and persisted in month after month and year after year. And His Majesty's Courts would be powerless to enforce any remedy.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Against the union.
R. LYTTELTONOr against individuals. [" No."] The words of the clause were—
" An action against a trade union whether of workmen or masters, or against any members thereof, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union "—

1759
He submitted that if the words which followed—
" For the recovery of damages in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union "
were left out, all injunctions whether against a trade union or against its members would cease [" No."], and the consequence might be that actions of the nature which he had described might be persisted in for years.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSthought there was some misconception in regard to the matter they were discussing. Might he point out to the right hon. and learned Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that this clause did not give any immunity to any individual? The words he had read—
" Or against any members thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union "—
were merely inserted for the purpose of getting rid of the representative character of the action, and were not intended to give, and did not give, any immunity to any individual for any unlawful act he might commit. The main purpose of the clause was to grant immunity to the union funds in respect of actions which might be brought against the union for damages for any tortious act committed by them. He understood it was the intention of the Committee, as expressed in the divisions that had taken place, that no such action should be brought. But he did not think the Committee, so far, had expressed any intention to grant immunity to a trade union in respect of any unlawful act it committed, apart from the recovery of damages from the funds of the union. Speaking for himself he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to him that if they did, the result would be that the trade unions would be able to commit unlawful acts if they were so minded, and no Court would be able to restrain them, although they might have expressed their intention of committing such acts, and mean to carry this intention into effect. He did not for a moment believe that the representatives of the trade unions claimed any such immunity. For example, suppose a union avowed
1760
its intention of intimidating persons, was not the Court then entitled to say that it would restrain that? Was there anyone who would complain of the trade union being asked not to do such things? But what was more important was that it seemed to him that in the discussion they were leaving out of consideration entirely the first three clauses of the Bill. He would ask those interested in trade unions to remember that those acts which the unions were desirous of being able to commit, and in respect of which they were seeking to be free from the control of the law, were already dealt with in the first three clauses. The great evil which the unions had suffered from was the extension of the doctrine of conspiracy to acts in which the unions had been held to have taken a part. But they had already got rid of that by Clause 1. The acts specified in that clause would be no longer unlawful, so they did not require the protection that a trade union should not be restrained by injunction from doing any of those acts. The same thing applied to Clause 2, so long as picketing was done peaceably and reasonably no unlawful act was committed. But supposing a union desired to go outside that clause and to do something unlawful? Why should the Court not be allowed to restrain it? Again, the same observations would apply to Clause.3. Something had been said in reference to a trade union being restrained from granting strike pay. He did not know of any action in which an injunction had been granted to restrain a union from granting strike pay, except the Denaby case. That was a totally different case from the cases they were now dealing with. It was a case in which one member of a union sought to restrain other members from applying the funds of the union in a manner not sanctioned by the trusts of the union; in other words, he sought to restrain the union from committing a breach of trust. All that was decided there was that one member of a union could restrain the union from so using the funds as to commit a breach of trust. That was quite a different point from that they were now dealing with. No employer could bring such an action. In the Denaby case the employers had to

1761
seek out a man who was a member of the union, and they had to pay him the rather high wage of £4 a week to keep him during the period they were seeking this injunction for the use of his name. That showed quite plainly that so far as they were concerned the only way in which in their view they could restrain the union was by getting a member to raise the question of breach of trust as between one member and other members. In his opinion no Court would ever restrain a union from granting strike pay, unless the granting of such pay was against the union's own rules. In order to meet the exigencies which had been referred to in the course of the debate there was no necessity to have this provision. The only effect of the Amendment would be to grant that which no member would get up and say he desired: an immunity from any action of the Courts restraining trade unions from committing acts which were admittedly unlawful acts.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the Labour Members could not go into the point as to whether the law at present said this or whether the Bill would bring about the other. That was a matter for their legal friends, and while it was being argued they sat there rather bewildered. But they could say in honest English what it was they wanted. As to the question of strike pay he quite accepted the position that the only person who could stop strike pay was a member of the union, and that if he could stop it, it was because it was a breach of the rules if the union, not because it was a breach of law. He took it that after the Denaby case, the second case, actions by employers to restrain the granting of strike pay were stopped.
MR. J. WARD: Except through a member.
MR. SHACKLETON: Except through a member. If the unions were open to that attack to-day under the present law and under this Bill they would have to meet it in their own way. Of course, they could not say that a member of a union had not the right to see that the rules for the protection of the funds were enforced. In regard to this clause
1762
covering the question of damages, they certainly did want to make it certain that their funds should not be liable. They were of opinion that the clause as it stood would relieve their funds from any liability to damages. It had not been shown to his satisfaction that there was any danger to their funds in the clause. As to the point whether a union should be liable to an injunction he was with his right hon. friend thus far, that he was anxious that the union as such should be exempt. Bat he was also with the Member for Reading. The members of a committee who persistently instructed men to do wrongful acts ought to have an injunction granted against them as individuals.
MR. J. WARD: Not as men?
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wanted to deal fairly with this matter. He felt a certain amount of responsibility and he wanted to state a fair case to the public. In his own case as a secretary if his committee persistently said a wrongful act should be done, he could not accept the position that nobody could come and say, "You must stop it." But he did say the union as such—the members of the union— should not be liable for anything that arose from it. The individuals responsible for carrying on a dispute should not be allowed to do illegal acts; and if they did those illegal acts some Court ought to be allowed to say, "It is time you stopped this." In the event of an injunction being granted he wanted it to be secured that the members out on strike should not lose their strike pay. The Attorney-General had assured them the clause would not have that effect. He suggested that the matter should be not settled to-night. It was a very important matter and some of his hon. friends sitting near him differed from him on the matter, and if it was possible so to arrange the clause that the points enumerated were safely secured he was willing to support it. It would be unwise to force these particular words in or out just now, and if the Attorney-General could manage to leave the matter over until the Report stage they could consider the question in the meantime and have words put in which would secure the union funds so that strike pay

1763
was not stopped as the result of an injunction. Then he thought they would all agree on the matter.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should be quite content to allow these words to be left over with the distinct understanding that they could raise the questor of injunction again on Report, and with a view to allowing the Government to look into the matter. He confessed he had not felt satisfied in the debate that the questions he asked had been really answered satisfactorily. The main question he asked was whether actions for injunctions could still be brought against unions. He understood the answer was yes. The other question was, "Is there any other action except an action of tort?" He would like a clear answer to that. With regard to injunctions he felt the private nuisance under the picketing clause was a matter which was likely to be raised and dealt with by injunction as it had been dealt with by injunction in the United States. It was a point which the Government ought to meet if they could.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe and there was not a word in it with which he did not agree. His belief was that the clause as it stood carried out every one of the objects which his right hon. friend rightly desired; but he was quite ready to give the assurance that the Government would give it further consideration before the Report stage, and if they found any modification or addition was needed they would bring up words.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he also agreed with the spirit of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe. He thought the hon. Member saw as clearly as any Member of the Committee that it would be grossly improper for the House to allow any body of men to go on committing a wrong and deprive the Courts of the country of the power of preventing that wrong being committed. The only caveat he put in was this— and he put it in entirely in the spirit of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member
1764
for Clitheroe. He agreed with the learned Gentleman the Member for Reading in this: a committee of a trade union when endeavouring to do a wrong ought to be subject to the orders of the Court by which that wrongful act could be put an end to. But the Member for Clitheroe seemed to think that rule ought not to be extended to the union. If the union had no control then he quite agreed it was the actual responsible body that ought to be got at. There might be cases where the trade union was the really responsible body, and if one committee was dealt with by a Court of law another committee should be so dealt with. The principle laid down by the Member for Clitheroe ought to be accepted, but his interpretation ought not to be accepted without consideration. With his statement that the persons responsible should be made subject to the action of the Court he personally should be content; and he was quite sure the object which the Member for Clitheroe and he had in common would be fully attained if they confined themselves to the narrow limits of the formula which the Member for Clitheroe had himself suggested. Subject to that he believed the course he had proposed that they should put off the final decision of the point was well advised. He thought they were approaching an hour at which the Committee should report progress. It was a complicated problem they had to deal with, and the general comfort, convenience, and efficiency of the House ought to be considered. He could not help urging the Government and all interested in the measure to consider whether the course he suggested should not be followed. Everybody must feel that the speaking had been fairly divided between the two sides of the House and there had been nothing in the nature of undue delay. Very complicated questions had been got over at least as quickly as they ought to have been got over; and the House was much less fit now after sitting twelve hours to deal with these questions than it would be in happier circumstances.
MR. ASQUITHhoped the Committee would not leave their work unfinished. There were Amendments still on the Paper in the names of hon. Members on

1765
both sides of the House; but they were of such a nature as could be reasonably and easily disposed of.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Government had any suggestion to make as to the amount of time to be devoted to the Report stage? If there was an understanding that a reasonable amount of time would be given on the Report stage the discussion to-night might be curtailed.
MR. ASQUITH: I have not the least hesitation in giving that assurance. Adequate time will be given.
*MR. BRACEsaid he did not quite appreciate the statement made by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe. Before committing himself he must see the undertaking in print, and therefore the Member for Clitheroe did not state the case for Labour Members like himself who at present did not feel they could say they were satisfied with the clause.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not understand that the hon. Member for Clitheroe had given any undertaking. He thought they would not do any good by discussing the matter further at the present time, and he appealed to his hon. friends to let it stand over in the way suggested. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILmoved to report progress. The Committee had been sitting for close upon twelve hours, and apart from any question of getting the Bill through, they had sat long enough for a reasonable discussion of the Bill. This was a Bill of considerable difficulty. It raised questions of considerable interest requiring very close attention. Further there was a distinct Parliamentary pledge given that the Committee should not sit later than eleven o'clock that night. If that pledge was disregarded it would be impossible for the Opposition to pay the slightest attention to any pledge given by the Government in the future. They had a debate on the Guillotine Resolution of the Education Bill and the Chancellor of the
1766
Exchequer said in so many words that the only business to be taken before August 4, except the Education Bill, was Supply, one day for the Grantham impeachment, and one day for the Trade Disputes Bill. By any construction of his words that was all the Government asked them to do. It was in the faith of that pledge that the House passed the Guillotine Resolution. Then they came to the motion for the time of the House, made by the Prime Minister on the 30th July. In making his proposal the right hon. Gentleman gave a list of the Bills which he desired to be taken, and among them this Bill. Thereupon the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the extreme difficulty of taking this Bill in this session. He said it was a Bill of a very controversial character, and that it was ridiculous to ask the House to take a Bill of that kind after eleven o'clock at night. That was the whole burden of what his right hon. friend had said. He said it over and over again. He pointed out that it was in deference largely to the views of the Labour Members that the hour of eleven o'clock was fixed for the adjournment of the House and that it was utterly unreasonable to ask the House to take a Labour Bill after eleven o'clock at the fag-end of the session. What was the answer of the Prime Minister to that? It was not reported very fully, and the answer was not correct. He was present.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are wasting time.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would ask the hon. Gentleman for the ordinary courtesy of debate. The Prime Minister said—
"they did not propose to take more than the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill at present, and their intention was to take that Bill between five and eleven o'clock on a Friday."
And as a matter of fact he went on to say that he would not ask the House to sit later than eleven o'clock. The Leader of the Opposition put the question to him again, and the Prime Minister said he did not propose to ask the Committee to stay later than eleven o'cock. That was perfectly clear and distinct. But it was not

1767
only his impression, it was the impression of the Patronage Secretary. Only the other day the hon. Member for Clitheroe asked the Patronage Secretary when they proposed to take this Bill again, and he said this—
" It is rather difficult to say. Of course, the Government are very anxious that the Committee stage shall be taken before the holidays. I shall put it down at twelve o'clock as the first Order next Friday, and we will take it up to eleven o'clock."
And he said—
'' We cannot take it beyond eleven o'clock, because the Prime Minister has given a pledge that we should not."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I was very particular about what I said. Will the noble Lord read on?
LORD R. CECIL:—
" If we cannot finish it before eleven o'clock we shall have a good many hours on the Saturday, and we will put it down for that day. If we cannot get it on Saturday it will have to go over to the Autumn."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Some objection was made to what I was remarking, and I said I was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister' pledge debarred us from going beyond eleven o'clock, but I looked into the matter, and found that the pledge did not debar us from going on.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was quite content with that statement of the Patronage Secretary, because it showed that his impression was the same as he believed the impression of everybody else, namely, that the Prime Minister's pledge did debar them from going on, and, as a matter of fact, the pledge that he had read to the House was perfectly distinct— that they should not go beyond eleven o'clock. Of course, it was perfectly open to the Party opposite to disregard that pledge. They were in a majority and they could do it. Let it be perfectly clear, however, that it was the deliberate disregarding of a solemn Parliamentary pledge. He put it as high as that, and he was perfectly confident of it himself, for he heard the pledge given and he had no doubt of it. He was going to make a speech on that occasion, as a matter of fact, but he was asked by one of the hon. Members
1768
sitting on the front Opposition Bench not to say anything because it was thought that the Prime Minister's pledge was satisfactory, and it was not necessary to press the matter any further. No case could possibly be stronger from a Parliamentary point of view, and if they disregarded it they would gain a temporary victory to-night, but they would find that the conduct of their business would not be so smooth in future. If they broke this pledge, it would be the cowardly act of a great majority tyrannising over a small minority. He said that deliberately because he believed it, and he was quite sure that every right hon. Member on the Treasury Bench believed it too. He said that such conduct as that was utterly discreditable to the House of Commons, and would be utterly discreditable to the Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMANsaid he would pass over the compliments of the noble Lord, and the feelings and intentions and rules of conduct which he was good enough to attribute to the Government. He thought when he had been longer in the House he would be a little less dogmatic in imputing evil intentions to other people. What he said on the 18th July was what the noble Lord had read out, that it was intended to take this Bill on a Friday between five and eleven o'clock. That was last Friday. It was taken between five and eleven o'clock, and that was what they thought would be required for it. Then he (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) went on to say—
"In that way, there will be time for the discussion of the really one point in the Bill which excites strong feeling."
That was their intention and idea. But it turned out that the noble Lord and others had a great deal to say upon the Bill, and they had had to have another Friday, and that Friday was not the subject of any announcement on the part of the Government. The Government, never had the intention of confining the discussion, but the intention they had was explicitly stated by him, and it

1769
was that this Bill should pass its Committee stage during this portion of the session. In order to do that, there being hardly any Amendments on the Paper which need occupy many minutes of time, the Government said that they ought to sit on to-night.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no class of Parliamentary controversy which he disliked more than controversies as to the precise character of pledges, and as to how far those pledges had been kept or broken. He had had, he believed, a longer continuous experience, in fact, he knew he had had a longer continuous experience—[a laugh]—it was quite evident that some Members of the Committee were hardly in a condition to continue this debate. He had had a longer continuous experience of the responsibilities of leadership of this House than any man for a century, and he could assure the House that there was nothing more absolutely certain than this, that a Government that did not carry out in their full spirit, as well as in the letter, the engagements which it made about business, however it might succeed for the moment, was preparing for itself inevitable trouble in the future. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, the present Leader of the House, had, he thought, forgotten what occurred upon the first occasion when the question of taking this Bill after eleven was first alluded to. It was at the time when he came down to the House on a Friday morning, and proposed to suspend the eleven o'clock rule. There then arose, as was natural, a discussion upon the business which was to be taken after eleven, and he (Mr. Balfour) made a strong protest against taking this particular Bill after eleven o'clock. He would not read the speech which he made on the subject, but the whole point of that speech was that they were working on the pledge originally given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single Friday should be given to the Trade Disputes Bill. There then was a proposal that that Bill should be taken on a certain Friday, and carried on without reference to the eleven o'clock rule. He protested against this, and he gave arguments which seemed to him then,
1770
and which seemed to him still, very powerful, to show that they ought not to continue this discussion after eleven, and it was in answer to a speech, of which that was the whole burden, and which was intended to plead with the Government and with the House against any such action, that the Prime Minister replied. He then said that —
" After all, the strong point in his objection "—
that was his (Mr. Balfour's) objection—
"To the proposal of the Government was the position given to the Trade Disputes Bill; But the Government did not intend to take more than the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill before the House adjourned, and their intention was to take that on a Friday between 5 and 11—"
the point being that that was an answer to his appeal that the Trade Disputes Bill should not be taken after eleven. Because it was found that one day between the hours of five and eleven was not sufficient the Government came down and said that their pledge was at an end. He ventured to say that no man in the private transactions of life would ever put such an interpretation on a pledge. He was quite certain that if he had been responsible for any such refined interpretation when he was in the place of the right hon. Gentleman he would have been the first and the loudest in his reproaches. He personally raised no objection: so far as his own feelings were concerned he cared not whether they sat late to-night or whether they sat early to-morrow. But that the Government gave what everybody accustomed to Parliamentary practice would admit was a pledge and that they now proposed to depart from that pledge seemed to him to be absolutely clear. For his own part, if the Government were prepared, as he believed they were, to give them full time on the Report stage, he had no objection to the Committee stage being finished before they separated for the holidays, and he cared not whether it was done to-night or to-morrow. But that there was a pledge that their proceedings on this Bill should not go beyond eleven o'clock seemed to him absolutely clear. He had every confidence in the Prime Minister; he was quite sure that if he had time to look back on what passed and to recall all that passed he would agree that

1771
an undertaking of a really efficient and binding character was given, and that if any Member of the House chose to press it the Government had no choice but to defer this discussion till to-morrow morning.
MR. ASQUITHsaid his right hon. friend the Prime Minister undoubtedly said that it was not intended to begin the discussion of this Bill after eleven o'clock. But even that was not by way of pledge; it was merely a declaration of the intentions of the Government. What was the position the right hon. Gentleman opposite now took up? Apparently it was this: that when eleven o'clock struck last Friday night the Prime Minister and the Government were under a pledge not to resume the discussion of this Bill. What, in the name of common sense, had they been doing for the last twelve hours? According to the right hon. Gentleman's contention every minute they had been sitting there since they met at twelve o'clock had been a breach of an understanding. That was the reductio ad absurdum. At what moment to-night did they begin to violate their pledge?
R. A. J. BALFOUREleven o'clock.
R. ASQUITHsaid they had continued the discussion till quarter to twelve, the right hon. Gentleman himself taking part, with general acquiescence on both sides of the House. He (Mr. Balfour) himself said he would not make a Motion to terminate the debate and it was not until the noble Lord on the back benches got up that it was suddenly discovered that during the whole of the last twelve hours they had been guilty of a gross breach of a pledge. The Government did not in the least assent to that view. They had given no pledge of any sort or kind, except that the Committee stage of this Bill should be concluded before they adjourned for the holidays.
IR E. CARSONsaid he was not going to argue over again the question of the breaking of the pledge. They had their own view of that they knew it had been broken and they knew it had been broken because minorities had to suffer. It was only on a par with the systematic
1772
bullying they had been subjected to for some time. After all, it was a very poor victory for a majority of 300 or 400 to bully a very small minority. But apart altogether from the broken pledge—and they were getting rather accustomed to broken pledges—he would like to remind the Government of the amount of business which they had had to go through during the last three or four weeks. It was all very well for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to think that it was a very light matter; very few of them had been up till two o'clock in the morning. During the last three or four weeks—and he said it to the credit of the Government—there had been important Bills passed in this House, and sometimes debated, which no other Government would ever have thought of bringing on at the late hours this Government had done. They had done that work. What was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said the pledge only related to last Friday. And why were they to adjourn at eleven o'clock last Friday? Because working from twelve o'clock in the day till eleven o'clock at night was thought to be as much as the House could do with any kind of justice to the subject they had in hand. But what was the idea now? It was that after a week's work and after sitting up till two o'clock every night they were in a better condition to go on after 11 o'clock than they were on this night week. So far as many of them on that side who had been attending to this question the whole day—and with very great reason—were concerned, they had to admit that after sitting there seven hours beyond the usual time they were fairly exhausted. As the subject was a very technical one, many of them had had to take part in the debate a great number of times. He was sure the one person who would have the sympathy of everybody—he was the only Minister who had taken the least concern about this Bill—was the Attorney-General, who had undergone a tremendous amount of hardship all through this debate. For all these reasons, apart from any pledge, it was reducing the discussions of this House to an absolute farce, to say that with a House worn out as this was after a twelve hours sitting they should go on pretending to discuss matters of the

1773
most vital importance in regard to a Bill which, on the admission of everybody, was introducing absolutely new principles into the law of the country. He dared say the Government would not yield to that argument any more than to the other arguments that had been put forward, but would prefer to rest their victory and their reputation on bullying the Opposition and on breaking their pledges.
MR. PAULearnestly hoped that the Government would not consent to the suspension of these proceedings until they had passed this stage of the Bill. There had been thirty Conservative

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

and Viscount Valentia.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

Duckworth, James

Agnew, George William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Alden, Percy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Elibank, Master of

Astbury, John Meir

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Essex, R. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Byles, William Pollard

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferens, T. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beale, W. P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bell, Richard

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gill, A. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cleland, J. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Benin, Sir J. Williams (Devonpo'rt)

Clough, W.

Glover, Thomas

Benn, W.(T'w'r' Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Berridge, T. H. D.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cooper, G. J.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Billson, Alfred

Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Hall, Frederick

Brace, William

Cox, Harold

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brigg, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cremer, William Randal

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Brodie, H. C.

Crooks, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brunnor, J. F. L.(Laucs., Leigh)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Members present during the day, and it was a perfect farce that they should dictate to the 200 or 300 gentlemen who had come down to do their duty to their constituencies and to the country.
MR. PORSTERreminded the hon. Member that it was only the presence of the thirty Conservative Members for whom he had such a profound contempt that saved his Government from defeat.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 31; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 318.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Seddon, J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seely, Major J. B.

Hazleton, Richard

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Masterman, C. P. G.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Menzies, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Henry, Charles S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Simon, John Allsebrook

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morrell, Philip

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Horniman, Emslie John

Murphy, John

Snowden, P.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)

Steadman, W. C.

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Isaacs, Rnfus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Jardine, Sir J.

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Sullivan, Donal

Jenkins, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Summerbell, T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Grady, J.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Thompson, J. W.H (Somerset, E.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, William

Kelley, George D.

Paul, Herbert

Toulmin, George

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paulton, James Mellor

Ure, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)

Vivian, Henry

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lamont, Norman

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Walsh, Stephen

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Walters, John Tudor

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hen. David

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Weir, James Galloway

Lynch, H. B.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitehead, Rowland

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

Wilkie, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

M'Callum, John M.

Robson, Sir William Snowden

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rowlands, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Mallet, Charles E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Seaverns, J. H.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As in my opinion the Prime Minister has broken a deliberate pledge, I shall take no further part in these proceedings myself, and I advise my friends to follow my example.
[The right hon. Gentleman then left the chamber, followed by most of the Unionist Members.]
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved to omit from the proposed new clause the words—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
1776
In his belief the insertion of that proviso almost entirely nullified the effect of the former part of the section; in other words, he believed from a careful study of the section, and the decisions given upon it, that the action which, by the first part of the section was prohibited against the trade unions, might come in with all its effects against the trustees under that provise. He was quite sure that the Attorney-General could not have intended it to be so. He was not raising this without very grave consideration, and, quite frankly, he believed that if this were carried there was a very great risk of undoing the

1777
whole intention of the previous part of the clause. Section 9 of the Act of 1871 provided, that—
"the trustees of any trade union registered under this Act, or any other officers of such trade union who may be authorised so to do by the rules thereof, are hereby empowered to bring or defend, or cause to be brought or defended, any action or complaint in any court of law or equity touching or concerning the property rights or claim to property of the trade union."
To some extent, the Taff Vale case was got out of that section, but only to a slight extent. But there was a case which had been decided, where it had been held—and here was the importance of the point—that they might sue the trustees under that section for damages for tort and the plaintiff might then stand in the shoes of the trustees and get the damages out of the funds of the union. And if that were so, and his interpretation was right, then it followed that the effect of this clause was to say, in the first part, that they could not sue the union Tweedledum, but they had better get at the union Tweedledee. This was a case of libel where the trustees of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were sued as owners of a paper, the organ of the union. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading argued in the case, and he set up as a method of defence that in this particular case they could not get at the funds of the union beyond the trustees, for the reason that this was a tort and was not such an action touching property as was contemplated by Section 9 of the Act of 1871. Mr. Justice Mathew, who gave judgment, overruled the point of view put by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading, and he said:—
"In my opinion, property under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 means property generally, and an action, attacking the assets of the society— for example, an action brought for breach of contract entered into on behalf of the society —would be an action touching or concerning the property of the trade union."
So the action which threatened the assets of the society, by a claim for damages, as
1778
in this case, would be an action that touched and concerned the property of the society. Every action, that was to say, brought hitherto against the trade union had been an action which threatened to diminish the assets of the society, and if this proviso went in saying that the first part of the section should do nothing to affect the liability of the trustees under Section 9 of the Act of 1871, and they still left standing that decision, given expressly upon Section 9 of the Act of 1871, this clause, without it intending to be so, would turn out to be a hollow pretence and a sham, and in a year or eighteen months time they would be in the position of having the Courts of law able to drive a coach and four through it. He would ask the Attorney-General to consider this. He might perhaps see his way clear to say that words should be introduced so as to meet the particular points which he had raised—so as to meet the possibility that under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 they could still have an action for tort arising out of a trade dispute. If he could not see his way clear, he regarded the matter of such imperative importance from the point of view of their pledges in the country, and from the point of view of labour that he would have to press his Amendment to a division.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
"In line 5, to leave out from the word 'court' to end of clause."—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was sorry at the concluding observation of the hon. and learned Member's speech because his fears were purely imaginary, and his views with regard to the clause and its interpretation were absolutely unfounded. He had always assumed

1779
that his hon. and learned friend advocated the status quo, and yet he wished to strike out of his clause words which he thought were essential to the maintenance of the status quo. The clause provided that no action should be brought against a trade union. It was possible that some ingenious tribunal might say that by that provision they entirely repealed Section 9 of the Act of 1871. No one wanted to repeal Section 9 of the Act of 1871. His hon. and learned friend did not wish it.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: No.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that hon. Members opposite certainly did not wish to repeal it. The Government wished to leave that Act in full force. And therefore under this clause, while no action of tort could be brought against a trade union, nothing that exempted that trade union from liability of that sort would interfere with the operation of the Act of 1871, Section 9. It had reference to a very limited class of cases indeed which were brought not against the trades union, but against the trustees of the trade union. If hon. Members would allow him to refer to what these sections were, he thought they would agree that there was no trade union which sought to be free from that sort of liability, and it was only that sort of liability which was preserved by the last clause of this Bill. Section 9 said that the trustees of a trade union registered under this Act, who might be authorised to do so by the rules, were empowered to bring actions or to defend actions, or cause actions to be brought or to be defended, in any Court of law or equity, touching or concerning the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union, and should, in all cases concerning the property of such trade unions, sue and be sued. They might bring the action, and they might
1780
be subject to actions which touched or concerned their property. They might plead in any Court of law or equity in their proper names; that was to say, in the names of the trustees. They might be sued if their property was the means of inflicting an injury upon others. That was a provision of the Act of Parliament which was put into operation, and which it was not proposed to repeal, and which was framed with regard to the status quo which he understood his hon. and learned friend was anxious to preserve. And the only conceivable object of putting it in was to prevent the status quo being disturbed by a side-wind, and by an operation of the clause that it was not intended to have at all. As to the case of Linacre v. Pilcher, there a newspaper was established by a trade union out of its own funds, and was a part of its own property. It was just as much a part of its own property as its own premises and offices might be, or as any store which it might establish might be. There was nothing whatever in this section which said that the decision of Linaker v. Pilcher should be law. All that the section said was that the Act of Parliament should be law, and while the Act of Parliament remained law they were fulfilling their pledge by maintaining the status quo.
MR. J. WARDsaid that he was only a layman, but he understood that clauses in Acts of Parliament were generally decided by what followed. The last words of this clause if it remained as suggested would be—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such union, to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
He gathered from the Attorney-General that if these words were left out Section 9 of the Act of 1871 would still remain. In these circumstances he did not think that the words proposed to be left out should remain, because they limited, or

1781
seemed to limit, the previous provisions of the clause. He was very much afraid that if they remained they might be used to get at the funds of the trade unions in some way or other. He was not satisfied at all with the previous decision of the Committee in regard to this clause. He did not think trade unions would submit in any circumstances to having their committees, as committees, liable to injunctions or to actions of any description.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go back on previous Amendments.
MR. J. WARDhoped, in the circumstances, the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh would persist in his Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that on this occasion he would certainly advise his hon. friends to vote with the Government. He rejoiced to see that even at this late period the Attorney-General had assented to the views which he and those of his friends who sat around him had attempted to press on the Government. He was glad to see the Secretary for War present, because he would be able to rejoice with him. The right hon. Gentleman and himself perfectly agreed on this point; probably, as the House was constituted at that moment, they were the only two Members who would be found in the same lobby. He said that because he saw the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
" Mr. Keir Hardie had written to the newspapers threatening Mr. Asquith and himself with all sorts of retribution if they would not toe the mark by voting for the particular proposals which Mr. Keir Hardie wished to carry out. Well, he was sure that neither he nor Mr. Asquith would budge one inch because of Mr. Keir Hardie's remarks."
He saw there was some dissent at the claim he had made that the right hon.
1782
Gentleman and himself were agreed on this point. But he begged to repeat the observation that the decision of the Government to incorporate in their Bill Section 9 of the earlier Act lent the strongest colour to the view that the contention supported by the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in the last resort carried the day in this highly controversial question. When the case was put to the Attorney-General, a case which had been decided in a Court of first instance, of successful proceedings involving the payment of damages being taken against a trade union for libel, what was his answer? He made two answers, one the fit complement of the other. In the first place he said the trade union had property, and that being so there was no inherent unreasonableness in making that property liable—a most powerful ally of the proposition he (Mr. Smith) had contended for ever since this Bill came before the House. It was the contention that had been made on those benches again and again, that when they had the element of property they should make that property liable. But the Attorney-General's ingenuity was not exhausted by that answer. In order to comfort hon. Gentlemen below the gangway who might have begun to doubt as to the value of the concessions they were deriving from this Bill, he gave a second answer. After all, he said, Linaker v. Pilcher, though it was a reported case, Was only a decision of a Court of first instance. He complimented hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the litigious prospects opened out to them by the Attorney-General. The judge who tried that case was a judge who in commercial experience and in knowledge of trade disputes was inferior to no lawyer on the bench, and speaking for himself he desired to thank the Government for the valuable concession which they had given even at

1783
the last hour to the cause he had been vainly endeavouring to press upon them, and for having established the proposition that when a trade union had property, had funds, and employed those funds in violating the common law rights of other citizens, those funds should be liable.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Government had made no concession, and the hon. and learned Member's speech was highly inflammatory and imaginary. There was no difference of principle in regard to this clause. He was anxious to avoid the smallest danger that the area of liability of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 should be enlarged, and therefore he would suggest to his hon. and learned friend who proposed this Amendment that possibly if the words of the clause were modified in this way his point would be met—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Trades Union Act, 1871."
That was a simple indication that they did not wish to repeal that Act. If he thought that these words would not meet the point then he would be glad to consider it further between now and the Report stage.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I should be glad to accept the words, but, frankly, I do not think they change the position.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (SIR W. ROBSON, South Shields)thought the hon. and learned Member opposite entirely misconceived the decision in Linaker v. Pilcher. He was in that case with his hon. and learned friend behind him, and he did not suppose that any trade unionist would desire to reverse the decision. It was a case entirely outside a trade dispute. The union entered into the business of
1784
newspaper proprietor just as it might have entered into the business of keeping a grocer's shop, and having enter ed into that business it assumed all the liabilities attaching to it. If it chose to make libellous observations, then like other newspaper proprietors it had to stand the consequences. But the case Was altogether outside the scope of a trade dispute. It was a case of a trade union taking up another pursuit and assuming both the advantages and disadvantages of that pursuit in common with all other people.
MR. F. E. SMITH: I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he suggests that the libel was not published in the course of a trade dispute.
SIR W. ROBSON: It was not:
*MR. RUPUS ISAACSsaid he could answer that question. It certainly was not a case of a trade dispute. In addition to what had already been stated in regard to that case, his recollection was pretty clear that those who were responsible for the trade union were distinctly of opinion that having been proved to be wrong on the facts stated at the trial, and having been cast in damages, the case should not be carried any further. It was exactly the same position as if a trade union had been suing or had been sued for breach of contract in respect of property which it owned; for example, as if a union renting a house had been sued by the landlord for rent. Linaker v. Pilcher decided nothing more nor less than that the trustees were liable for a wrong done arising out of the publication of a newspaper owned by the union in the names of trustees, and one of the points at issue was whether the trustees were entitled to an indemnity from the union funds as they had been carrying on the business in the name of the union.
MR. CLEMENT EDWAEDSsaid he did not differ one bit from the view put by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as to the point at issue in that particular case. But the danger of the whole position was in the ground on which the judge based his decision, and when one remembered that that judge probably more than any other judge had taken a friendly attitude towards trade unions, he solemnly warned the Committee of the great danger involved in accepting this proviso.
MR. JOHN WARD, after the explanations and the promise of the Attorney-General to reconsider the subject in view of the discussion that had taken place, appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS, on the understanding that further consideration would be given to the matter before the Report stage, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill."
Motion made, and Question "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 23rd October, and to be printed. [Bill 342.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow at Ten of the Clock.
MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Re solved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred for the purpose of the Census under any Act of the present Session to provide for taking a Census of Production."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Consideration of Lords' Amendments.
MR. BRYCEmoved, "That the House do agree with the Lords in the following Amendment—
"In Clause 11, 'provided that, where the Court is satisfied in any particular case that, owing to the difficulty of showing title, the costs properly or necessarily incurred in respect of such payment amounted to a larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded.' "
MR. SPEAKERsaid he had to acquaint the House that this Amendment was, or might still be, an infringement of the rights of the Commons. Of course, the possibility of an increase of rate, which might be caused by such order of the Court, was remote, but still it was a possibility, and in that respect it might be that an extra charge might have to be incurred. And therefore, as he had said, the Amendment was still, in his opinion, in an almost infinitesimal degree, but still in some degree, an infringement of the Commons' rights.
MR. BRYCEthought that, although it was late, the importance of disposing of this Bill, which must be disposed of to-night if it was to pass into law to-morrow, and which was awaited with the greatest anxiety and impatience in Ireland, justified them, in taking the matter now, and he would state the position in the fewest possible words. This House had disagreed with some of the Amendments made by the Lords. The first of those Amendments the Lords had abandoned and not insisted upon, or had agreed to the Commons' Amendment. The second raised an important question of privilege, and upon that the Lords had not insisted. The third Amendment now before the House was one upon which they disagreed with the Lords upon the question of privilege. The Lords had also not insisted upon that Amendment, but had substituted for it another Amendment, which was now before them. That Amendment, as Mr. Speaker had told the House, might possibly, to an infinitesimal degree, be an infringement of the privileges of the House to this extent, that it might possibly in certain cases impose a charge upon the rates. That, however, would be to a very small extent, and this Amendment did not cover any decision at which the House had arrived, as the former Amendment did. It only contemplated a certain class of cases, in which it was possible that there might arise some hardship to individuals. The Amendment itself therefore, on its merits, was not unreasonable, and he believed that it would remove a certain amount of not unnatural irritation in certain quarters. Of course, they all knew how important and valuable to them were the privileges of the House. They had been the very foundation of the power and strength of the House, and he thought they ought on every occasion to be jealously guarded. At the same time the House had never been dogmatic on the subject, and where it could
1788
be shown that its rights were fully vindicated, and where it was shown that an Amendment might be adopted without prejudice to those rights, it had never hesitated to waive its privilege, having asserted it. And therefore no harm was done to its rights, while at the same time the object of putting the Bill into a proper shape was in point of fact attained. That was the course which the Government thought the House might properly follow on this occasion. The Amendment itself was one which might perfectly well be accepted, and one which might be represented as an improvement of the Bill. They had asserted their rights, and their rights were admitted in this case from the fact that the Lords had substituted another Amendment which was to a vary much, smaller degree subject to the objection before taken; and under these circumstances he thought the case was one in which the House might properly waive its privilege and accept the Lords Amendment.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

LUNATICS.
Order [this day] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged.— (Mr. Claude Hay.)

MARRIAGE WITH FOREIGNERS BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered, forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th July last.
Adjourned at twelve minutes after One o'clock a.m.

Preamble
Colonial Marriages Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill, Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill, Dogs Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools. Of inhabitants of Burford; Croston; Clayton-le-Woods; and Whittle-le-Woods. Of parents or guardians of children attending schools at Chorley (4);Whittle-le-Woods; Hesken; Leyland; Coppul; and Croston. Of teachers in schools at Chorley; Whittle-le-Woods; Leyland; Blackburn (2); and Croston.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
(1) Petitions against; of Residents in Westminster; Parishoners of Wath-upon-Dearne; Clerical and Lay Members of Synod of Diocese of Salisbury; and of Residents in Wiltshire and Hartlebury; (2) Petition for amendment of; of congregation of St. Philip's, Griffin (Blackburn). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NAVY.
  (Courts Martial) — Return of the number of Courts Martial held and summary punishments inflicted during the year 1905.
  (Health)—Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1905.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Return of all British ships provisionally detained from 1st July 1905 to 30th June 1906, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 459 of the Merchant Shipping
1462
Act, 1894; also of all Foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period in pursuance of Section 462 of the same Act, together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships detained as unsafe from 1st October 1876 to 30th June 1906, distinguishing between those cases in which ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers [Cd. 2678.]).

BOILER EXPLOSIONS.
Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882, and 1890, with appendices (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2676]).
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSS OF LIFE).
Return showing the lives lost by wreck, drowning, or other accident in British seagoing merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom, during the years 1891 to 1905 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2639]).
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Report of proceedings as regards Ireland, for the year 1905.
STATISTICS.
Statistical Abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1894 to 1903–1904 (as far as particulars can be stated). Thirty-second number.
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Calendar of the manuscripts of the Marquess of Salisbury, preserved at Hatfield House, Herts. Part XI.: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1870.
Two Orders in Council, dated 28th July 1906, entitled—The Brunei Order in Council, 1906; the Nigeria Coinage Order, 1906.
COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892 (SOUTHERN RHODESIA).
Order in Council, dated 28th July 1906, applying certain provisions of the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to Southern Rhodesia.
WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
Seven Orders in Council, dated 28th July 1906, constituting Winter Assize Counties Nos. 1 to 7 for the purposes of the ensuing Winter Assizes.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
Order in Council, dated 28th July, 1906, approving the appointment of a receiver and agent for the Greenwich estate, and a revision of the salary of the officer supervising the staff of instructors and servants at the Royal Hospital School Greenwich.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Fourteen Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county councils.
Carnarvon—For uniting the parishes of Eglwysrhos and Llandudno to form the new parish of Llandudno-cum-Eglwysrhos.
Carnarvon—For uniting the parishes of Llanrhychwyn and Tre Gwydir to form the new parish of Llanrhychwyn.
Hereford—For transferring an area from the parish of Ross Rural and from the Ross Rural district to the parish of Ross Urban and to the Ross Urban district.
Hertford—For forming the area of the parish of Bushey Rural into the urban district of Bushey, and for altering the names of the parishes of Bushey Rural and Bushey Urban to Bushey and Oxhey respectively.
Holland, parts of—For altering the areas of certain parishes in the Boston Poor Law Union.
Huntingdon and the Isle of Ely— For constituting part of the parish of Stanground the parish of Stanground South, and the remaining part of the parish of Stanground North, and for forming the area of the parishes of Fletton Rural, Stanground South, and Wood-stone Rural into the urban district of Old Fletton.
Kent—For uniting the parishes of Gillingham and Grange to form the new parish of Gillingham.
Norfolk—For transferring to the parish of Overstrand parts of the parishes of Northrepps and Sidestrand.
Oxford—For uniting the parishes of Greys and Henley-on-Thames to form the new parish of Henley-upon-Thames.
Salop—For transferring to the parish of Eyton on the Wild Moors parts of the parishes of Hadley and Kinnersley.
Southampton—For transferring to the parish of Milford parts of the parish of Hordle.
Surrey—For abolishing the rural district of Egham and forming the area of the parish of Egham into the urban district of Egham.
Sussex, East—For uniting parts of the parishes of Mayfield and Buxted to form the new parish of Hadlow Down.
Yorkshire, West Riding of—For transferring to the township of Normanton and to the urban district of Normanton part of the township of Syndale, in the urban district of Featherstone.
MOTOR CAR ACTS, 1896 AND 1903.
Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor cars on certain highways or parts of highways within the borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.
Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor cars on certain roads and parts of roads within the city of Saint Alban, made by the Local Government Board under Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1903.
Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor cars on the highway known as Middle Street, within the urban district of Horsham, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.
Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor cars on the highway known as Anstey's Cove Road, within the borough of Torquay, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.
Regulation as to the registration of motor cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act

1465
of 1896, and under Section 7 of the Act of 1903; Southport (county borough). For assigning an index mark to the council of the county borough of South-port.

HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
City of Leeds.—Statement of modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the scheme confirmed by the Leeds (Housing of Working Classes) Order 1901.
County of London.—Statement of modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the London (Aylesbury Place, Clerkenwell, and Union Buildings, Holborn) Improvement Scheme, 1899.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. 39 considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. 39 having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX AND MR. PAUL— A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I desire to make, a personal explanation. I find that I had forgotten that Mr. Herbert Paul on a previous occasion denied the charge that he had abused his countrymen who fell in the war in South Africa, and that I had accepted his denial. I can only say that if I had remembered what had occurred I never should have said what I did last evening, and I wish to express my sincere regret to Mr. Paul that I should have done so.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether, in the event of a
1466
local education authority deciding that religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 shall be given in its schools, it will be compete it to that authority to pay a substitute for any teacher who may decline, under Clause 8, sub-clause (2) of the Education Bill, to give that instruction.
The object of this question is to make clear a point in the Education Bill now before the House which is not clear to me and to a good many other Members of your Lordships' House, namely, what are the powers which the local education authority will have of making payments for religious education under this Bill. So far as the teaching of denominational religion is concerned the Bill is explicit enough. Clause 8, Sub-section (2) provide) that—
" No part of the expense of giving religious instruction of a special character under this section shall be paid by the local education authority."
That is quite clear; but when we come to the teaching of undenominational, or what is called Cowper-Temple religion, I the point is altogether different. Hitherto undenominational religion has been taught in provided schools by the teacher as part of his ordinary duty, and it is therefore impossible to say whether any special payment has been made to him for teaching that religion or not. But this Bill creates a different situation altogether. Clause 8, subsection (2) provides that—
" A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any religious instruction."
Your Lordships must remember that in future all the schools in the country, including all rural schools, are to become provided schools, and that there is in rural schools, as a rule, only one teacher. Any one of these teachers may say that he declines to give this religious instruction. What will follow?
A similar question, though not exactly in the same form, because it did not relate to the question of payment but I rather to that of appointment, was asked in the other House of Parliament, and the Secretary to the Board of Education stated, in reply, that that teacher would

1467
be dismissed and that another teacher would be appointed in his place who would give this religious instruction. With all respect to the Secretary to the Board of Education, I submit to your Lordships that that is evidently a misconception on his part of Clause 8 of the Bill, because the whole spirit of that clause is that a teacher is not to be obliged to give religious instruction unless he chooses, and it is quite obvious that if he were dismissed because he chose to avail himself of the privilege which is given by the clause it would be a case of persecution.
What is to happen? The only course that I can see is to appoint a substitute presumably to teach this undenominational religion only. That substitute must be remunerated in some way. Is he to be paid directly? If so, in the first place you will be paying two teachers for the duties of the school, and, in the second place, I do not see how you can escape from the accusation which has been made not infrequently and which His Majesty's Government have constantly contradicted, namely, that you will be, to use the term which is generally applied, endowing one form of religious teaching and one form only. It is for that reason that I beg to ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council the Question standing in my name. The only alternative, so far as I can see, if you are not able to pay the substitute, is that the instruction will not be given at all, and the whole purpose of the local education authority would be defeated.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE): My Lords, I think it might be maintained that the Question which the noble Earl has put to me is somewhat doubtful as a matter of order.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh no. I am quite prepared to argue that point with the noble Earl.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: It undoubtedly refers to a Bill before the House, and it is evident that if Questions could be put upon all the different
1468
clauses of a Bill, the rule which forbids speeches to be made more than once on the Second Reading might lose its effect, owing to the fact that Questions in this House are not simply put as they appear on the Paper, but are accompanied sometimes by speeches of considerable length. However, I do not complain of my noble friend on this occasion, because I am able to answer the Question very briefly. He asks whether, in the event of a local education authority deciding that religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Act of 1870 shall be given in its schools, it will be competent to that authority to pay a substitute. The answer to that is undoubtedly in the affirmative. It will be competent for the local education authority to pay a substitute for any teacher who may decline, under Clause 8, to give the religious instruction referred to.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
Bill read 2a (according to Order).
Moved, "That the Bill be committed." —(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to call attention to the fact that this Bill has not been printed, and we know nothing as to its provisions. I have known of a mischievous clause relating to Ireland being placed in a Bill of this character, and I would wish to have an opportunity of seeing the Bill before it is passed through all its stages.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: This is a Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund and for other purposes of that kind. It has been read a first time, and copies of the Bill have, I presume, been accessible to noble Lords who felt interested as to its contents.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why has the Bill not been circulated?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not sure if this Bill should have been circulated.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It is quite possible that pressure of time has prevented the Bill being printed, but ii there is no clause in it relating to Ireland I will say no more upon it.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not familiar with all that has taken place, and it may be, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, that pressure of time has prevented the Bill being printed.
On Question, Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended). Bill read 3a, and passed.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.].
Order of the day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill to which I gave considerable care when I was in office, but for some reason or another which I have never yet understood, it was laid aside on reaching the House of Commons. It has again been introduced, and has passed through this House. A considerable number of Amendments have since been made in it. As your Lordships will well understand, a Bill which goes into the whole region of sea insurance is one which I cannot undertake to go through at once, and therefore I propose to ask your Lordships to postpone the consideration of the Commons Amendments until we meet in the Autumn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): I think the course which my noble and learned friend has suggested is a prudent one. This is a purely technical Bill, and certain Amendments of a technical character, but deriving high authority, have been inserted in he House of Commons. I believe it was there understood that the noble and earned Earl and myself, with others familiar with legal matters in this House, would revise those Amendments. I therefore think the course suggested of postponing the consideration of the Amendments until the autumn a wise one.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments discharged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT(1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, this is an unopposed Bill. I believe it is the result of a great fight between parties who have now come to terms. The object of the Bill is to enable a bridge which is very much wanted to be built at Kilkenny, and the persons concerned are very anxious to get the Bill through so as to begin the construction of the bridge as soon as possible. I hope your Lordships will therefore permit me to take the Bill through all its stages to-day.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: This Bill is a very short one, it is true, and no doubt everything the noble Lord has said is quite correct. I know there has been a considerable controversy for many years as to the building of a bridge at Waterford. It may be that one side of the bridge would be in county Kilkenny, and that this Bill refers to the same matter. If that is so, and if this Bill is a result of a settlement between the parties, who are very eagerly alive to their own interests and have been litigating for many years, I think he would be a rather rash person who would interfere with that arrangement.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord may not be right as to a portion of the bridge being in Waterford. But I distinctly remember that it referred to Kilkenny, because I associated it with cats.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships have some reason to complain of the action of the noble Lord, though we are delighted at the light and humorous way in which he

1471
treats legislation. He is asking your Lordships to pass the Second Reading of a Bill which has not been printed and circulated. I think that is going much too far. If this were the last moment on which legislation could be carried there might be something to be said for it; but I do not think even that would be an adequate defence for such a procedure. There will be ample time after the short recess to consider this and other measures, and I respectfully submit that the House ought not to be asked to pass in this way Bills which they have not had any opportunity of considering. I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he will not consent to put the Bill off.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I think I might explain that the Bill was sent up to me from the House of Commons. I handed it to Lord Denman, but, through some mistake, it was not put down and no action was taken upon it until yesterday, when the persons interested came to me from the House of Commons and explained the straits they were in. They told me about Kilkenny, and I said I would try and get the Bill passed through all its stages before the adjournment. I agree that this is rather an expeditious way of passing Bills, but the persons concerned are very anxious to get on with the building of this bridge, and there can be no danger in your Lordships allowing the measure to go through.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The putting down of a Bill for First Reading is not necessary in this House. If the Bill came up from the other House it would be read formally and printed. I think it is important to know when this Bill was read a first time.
LORD RIBBLESDALS: It was read a first time yesterday.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: In the circumstances I would suggest that the consideration of this matter should be postponed until the conclusion of business to-day. This would enable noble Lords interested in the matter to make inquiries.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I have just looked at the Bill. It merely amends a certain clause in a previous Act, and says nothing about the locality. But I think it must refer to the bridge connecting Kilkenny and Waterford. I have no doubt that if the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council is adopted the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will in the meantime be able to get full information.
Debate (by Order) adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the third Report from the Select Committee.
Moved, "That this Report be now received."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would appeal to my noble friend to postpone the consideration of this Report until the autumn. The Report has not been circulated, and was agreed to, I understand, only yesterday afternoon. The meeting of the Committee for yesterday was called for half-past three, but notices were sent out in the forenoon changing the hour to three o'clock. I arrived at the Committee at a quarter past three and found the whole of the business concluded. There is involved in this the abandonment of certain rooms belonging to your Lordships' House which are handed over to the other House of Parliament. There are, also other questions involved, concerning the powers to be exercised by the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod respectively. I cannot see what harm would be done to the public interest by postponing the consideration of this Report until the autumn. I think it is hardly fair to the House to hurry the matter through before your Lordships have had an opportunity of seeing the Report. I may be told that if my suggestion is adopted several weeks may be lost in necessary works, but that is a trivial matter compared to the other issues involved. I trust my noble friend will accede to my request.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of ONSLOW): My Lords. I

1473
confess that there is a good deal of difficulty in the last days of a session owing to the fact that the printer is overworked, and it is not possible to get Bills and Reports expeditiously printed and circulated. There would be no reason whatever why the consideration of this matter should not be adjourned until the autumn were it not for the fact that it is desired that in the interval between August and October the structural alterations necessary should be carried out so that the accommodation might be available during the Autumn sittings.
There are certain rooms of your Lordships' House on the terrace level which are used by the messengers, and it is proposed that they should be given up and should be turned into a dining-room for the House of Commons, the messengers being lodged in a part of this building over the old librarian's house. The First Commissioner of Works has undertaken that if that is done he will make such structural alterations as will give a good access to some very fine rooms which are in existence above part of the old librarian's house, but which at the present time cannot be used by your Lordships for any purpose whatever. If that is done we may find that we shall be able to add another Committee room for the use of your Lordships. If my noble friend Lord Balfour is not satisfied with the explanation I have given I hope he will allow the matter to be adjourned until the conclusion of business to-day, by which time we shall have the Report in our hands.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): I hope the noble Lord will consent to the course proposed by the Chairman of Committees. I have had some conversation with the First Commissioner of Works on the subject of these proposed changes, and it is really very desirable; in the interests of the comfort of the Members of both Houses, that the changes should be made in time for the autumn sittings. The extra accommodation which we shall have in the future will more than make up for the accommodation we are handing over to the House of Commons. The Committee were quite unanimous in recommending your Lordships to sanction this arrangement.
*VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: If the structural part of the Report could be separated from the rest I would be prepared to concur in the suggestion that has been made. I must, however, point out that in this Report your Lordships are asked to reverse a former decision about Black Rod. Formerly it was thought that certain powers could be transferred by the House to the Lord Great Chamberlain, but after full consideration the Committee have come to the conclusion that that was a mistake, and that there was no legal power in your Lordships to make such transfer Your Lordships are therefore asked by this Report to reverse your decision. I think it is rather strong to object to the adjournment of a Report which contains so important a point.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has said has not removed my objection. I understand that we are not getting a single thing which does not belong to us. We merely get access to a room which is already in our possession, but into which we cannot get at present. I think we have given up a great deal too much, and that we ought not to give up any more of our extremely limited accommodation. I am afraid that the postponement of the consideration of the Report until the end of the business will not meet my wishes, but, after the appeal which has been made, I will not object to that course.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the discussion might well stand over until the other business before us has been transacted. I think it is very unfair to your Lordships that we should be called upon to discuss questions of this kind without any information whatever as to what is proposed. I am afraid there has been a tendency to deal with the question of accommodation within the precincts of the House of Lords with very little desire to consult our wishes or our convenience. As we are to reconsider the matter at the close of the business to-day I would venture to express the hope that, if there are any plans which show in a general way what the rearrangement involved is,

1475
those plans might be put up in the next room so that we may have an opportunity of looking at them meanwhile.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will see that the suggestion of the noble Marquess is carried out. I would also be prepared, if noble Lords desire it, to separate the Report as suggested by the noble Viscount Lord Knutsford.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would point out the extreme inconvenience of the course proposed. Noble Lords opposite ask us to agree to this Report without further consideration on the ground that it concerns a matter for the convenience of both Houses. But in the course of this discussion it has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Knutsford that we are asked to reverse a decision which has recently been come to by your Lordships' House. We were not informed of that fact, and if the business had been allowed to proceed without objection we should have actually reversed one of our decisions without knowing what we were doing. Does not this demonstrate the extreme inconvenience of asking the House to agree to a Report which we have never seen? I hope your Lordships will not allow this kind of procedure to grow up, but will insist upon the printer doing his work in time for these matters to be fully considered.
Debate (by Order) adjourned.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess I feel somewhat ashamed of continuing a discussion which has gradually proceeded to a point when it has become a weary reiteration of questions asked and not answered. At the head of these questions is the question, why has this Bill—I do not say any Bill—been introduced? I agree with what the most rev. Primate said in that magnificent exposition which we all listened to with so much pleasure on Wednesday, that it was to be expected that His Majesty's Government
1476
would introduce a Bill upon the subject, but the question remains why a Bill which seems to have been conceived in a spirit of hostility to the Church of England should have been introduced as the only means of getting rid of what were supposed to be grievances arising out of the Act of 1902.
I should like to ask another question, but I am afraid it will meet the fate of its predecessors. Has any calculation been made of the relative positions of the Churches under Clause 4, how many Roman Catholic schools will be affected, how many Church of England schools, how many Jewish, and so forth? If any calculation of the kind has been made I would like to know the result, and, if the calculation has not been made, I ask, why not? Was it so immaterial a consideration? Are the members of the Church of England so few as to be a negligible quantity? What, then, is the meaning of a clause which, according to ordinary interpretation, will place the Church of England at a disadvantage, and that Church alone? As I have said, I am afraid I shall not get an answer. I cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that, whether the calculation was made or not, those who prompted the construction of this Bill must have had before them the evident effect of the proposals.
The Minister for Education has repudiated the idea that the Bill was constructed in any spirit of hostility to the Church of England. I know that Mr. Birrell is an honourable man, and I should be the last person in the world to suggest that he did not mean what he said; it is, therefore, the more extraordinary that the Bill as it stands is one which everybody who is familiar with the Church of England and its schools must know will in its effect be most disastrous to the schools of that Church. No one can challenge the knowledge of the occupants of the right rev. Benches, who almost without exception have pointed out the injustice which is done to the Church of England. Again I ask the question. Is this the only mode in which the supposed grievances on the part of Nonconformists can be met, and has any attempt been made to show what those grievances are?

1477
I am not taking an exaggerated or partisan view. I recognise gratefully the spirit and tone of the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council in introducing this Bill. But I am not alone in the view that I take. It is a view that has support in speeches of Government supporters. They admit that the Bill does not give religious equality in schools.
" For the first time in history a Government calling itself Liberal is definitely enacting that one form of religious teaching and one form only shall be subsidised by the State."
That is not my observation. It is the observation of Mr. Masterman. What one desires to know is, why is the Church of England the only exception from that scrupulous nicety with which other creeds are treated 1 The noble Duke said very truly yesterday that what is called Cowper-Templeism is not a specified form of religious teaching at all; it is a series of prohibitions. Something of that character has grown out of it, but it is only just to Mr. Cowper-Temple's memory to say that, whatever the effect of his clause has been, that was not what he intended. Let me read to the House what he said on that subject—
"the limitations to be put on the local boards should not only be negative, but also positive."

That has disappeared.
"the State in this matter of education ought to be unsectarian, but it must be Christian. It had been ruled by high authority that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, and before a witness could give evidence he must take an oath. The State ought to take care that in an undenominational school established under the Bill some religious instruction should be given. The Bible should be read and explained. The Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer should be taught. To allow the Bible to be read without explanation would be unfair and cruel to the child."
I think, after that quotation from Mr. Cowper-Temple's own words, it is somewhat unfair to his memory to describe Cowper-Templeism as having grown out of his clause in the way it is often described here and elsewhere.
I ask why the Bill has been introduced with its limitations and injustices affecting the Church of England, and what is to become of the Church's schools if the Bill is put into operation? I acknowledge at once the courtesy of
1478
tone which his characterised the discussion. We have had a series of most courteous and kindly wishes and assurances of good intentions—I am afraid there is an awkwardness always in speaking of good intentions—for which, of course, we are most grateful; but we have had no answers to our questions. Good intentions will not, I fear, construe an Act of Parliament, and unless you put your kindness to opponents into the statute, the hard-hearted Judges will be guided by the nature of that statute, and not by the good intentions of its authors.
Will it bring peace? I should like to recall the debates which took place in 1870, when it was made a reproach to Mr. Gladstone that he carried the Education Bill with the help of his political opponents, and to some extent that was due. Mr. Dixon and Mr. Illing-worth made remarkable deliverances on that subject. Let me read Mr. Dixon's Amendment, because it was in itself rather a prediction of what would follow. Mr. Dixon moved—
"That this House is of opinion that no measure for the elementary education of the people will afford a satisfactory or permanent settlement which leaves the question of religious instruction in schools supported by public funds and rates to be determined by local authorities."
And in discussing the question Mr. Forster pointed out the extreme danger of the course which left to the local authorities the determination of such questions. Mr. Illingworth was not less emphatic. He said—
" He was not going to attempt to determine what religion should be taught, but he objected strongly to Parliament abandoning its duty by refusing to determine so serious a question, and leaving it to be threshed out in vestries in the smaller and corporations in the larger towns."
Every one of these observations apply now with equal force to the new bodies formed under the name of local education authorities. That people should take a strong view of what is called "the eternal religious question" is not a circumstance which I, for one, regret; but the idea that this Bill is going to get rid of that question is illusory. I would again call attention to the resolution passed at a meeting under the

1479
presidency of Dr. Clifford, in which the meeting registered its protest against the acceptance of the Bill as a settlement of the question, and expressed the profound conviction of large numbers of Liberals and Nonconformists that it leaves several of the "grossest wrongs" Inflicted on the country by the Act of 1902 unredressed, while still further subsidising all the old denominational schools in many directions and strengthening their sectarian character. Whatever may be said about Dr. Clifford, I do not think any one will doubt his energy in any agitation he conducts. Can it be contended, in view of these facts, that this Bill can put an end to the religious differences?
I should have thought that the truer view—may I say the higher Christian view?—would be to desire as far as possible to meet the religious views of all sections. This is a case for the display of some kind of charity to your neighbour, but apparently the clergymen of the Anglican Church are outside the region of reasonable charity. They are always supposed to be proselytising, tyrannical, ritualistic persons, for whom no particular consideration ought to be displayed. That is not the spirit of true charity that should obtain. I do not understand what can be the idea in the minds of those who think that this Bill can bring about a settlement. I speak with "bated breath and whispering humbleness" In the presence of the right rev. Prelates on the purely religious aspect of the Bill. This is one of those subjects on which there is a natural reticence on the part of laymen; but none the less there is deeply seated in every Christian man's mind a feeling that this is the most important subject with which we can deal. It seems to me to be treated sometimes with a lightness which is certainly inappropriate to the subject.
I am not quite certain that I followed what Lord Ribblesdale meant by his quotation from the author of the '' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." I think it must have been wrongly quoted. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean what I am afraid it would be quoted as meaning. Mr. Gibbon himself never lost an opportunity of sneering
1480
at the Christian religion. I do not know what was meant unless it was that the line of true statesmanship would be to disregard all religion in the settlement of this question. If that was the meaning of it, I venture respectfully to differ profoundly from those who take that view. I believe that the religious history of our country is a standing testimony to the value of a Christian education and to the influence of the Church of England in maintaining it.
In some of these discussions there is a feeling that, whatever you do about religious education, you must avoid dogma. I say most sincerely that I do not know what that means. I know the meaning of the Greek world, but I do not believe it is intelligible. What do you mean by dogma? Every one of the propositions in the Apostles' Creed is dogma. Are you not to teach the Apostles' Creed? I again say I do not expect any reply to this question. It is one of many which will remain unanswered. Again, are you prohibited from finding out whether the person whom you employ, or whom you allow in obedience to the law to teach your child, is competent to do so? I believe that the neutral word "qualified" In regard to teachers is introduced. You dare not say that you must find out whether he is a Christian or whether he does or does not belong to your particular Church, for there you get the religious test. But is a teacher qualified to teach something in which he does not believe? How is it to be found out whether a man is qualified to teach religion? Does any sane person believe that a child can receive religious teaching from a person who does not believe in the religion he professes to teach?
It has been said that we may be sure that the persons entrusted with the duty of selecting the teacher will take care that he is qualified. I cannot help thinking that we must face these questions and not by the use of ambiguous phraseology get rid of the difficulty of answering them. Is it, or is it not, to be lawful for a father to ascertain whether the person who is to teach his child is a Christian or not? Lord Ribblesdale said he had never met in the flesh a Voltaire-cum-Rousseau teacher, but the

1481
most rev. Primate gave the House an example on Wednesday. Is this, or is it not, a real danger? Here was a man occupying a position such as the most rev. Primate described, and he was an actual unbeliever. Is it to be expected that Church of England parents will allow religious teaching to be given by such a teacher if they can help it? Let me suggest another difficulty. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council gave us, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather a layman's view of what he called the Cypres doctrine. It is dangerous to deal with legal phrases. May I ask the noble Earl whether he quite appreciates what he is talking about in that respect? Does he suggest that there is any analogy? I contend that there has been ample fulfilment of the purposes for which the voluntary schools were founded.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I cannot, of course, pretend to engage in a legal argument with the noble and learned Earl, but I imagine that the binding force of this clause is that it is on the failure to carry on the trust by these schools that the Commission steps in. The noble and learned Earl implied that the trust was being carried on. The necessary precedent condition is that the trust should have broken down, and then the Commission steps in.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Has it broken down? My point is that there has been no failures. I contend that there has been ample fulfilment of the purposes for which these schools were founded; and, that being so, the proposals of the Bill would, it appears to me, constitute an outrageous interference with private property, to say nothing else. I think it is a most serious thing to interfere with these trusts except in the case of misconduct or failure on the part of the managers to fulfil the purposes of the trust. It may be my fault, but I have not the least notion on what conceivable ground it is thought proper to interfere with these trusts, and I do not understand why a tribunal ad hoc should be created to deal with them, seeing that the Court of Chancery has for centuries applied itself
1482
to matters such as would come before the now tribunal. I should have every confidence in the three gentlemen to be appointed to form the Commission, but that is not the point. You do not get to them until the whole series of acts referred to last night by Lord Robertson come into play.
I hesitated a good deal to intervene in this debate knowing I should only be adding to the number of unanswered questions. But there is one observation I really think I must make. Threats, veiled or unveiled, have been held out in the usual way to your Lordships' House should you venture to act on your own view of what is right in this matter; I am not surprised that these threats have not been repeated in this House. I do not think that a threat is a very potent argument, and I think it is the very last thing to induce an Englishman to alter his views. We are dealing with the question whether or not we should abandon the children for whom we are responsible to what we believe to be an ungodly system—and it is an ungodly system if the leading principles of the Christian faith are struck out—and any one who imagines that your Lordships would be deterred by such a threat as that from acting on your own judgment and from throwing out this Bill, if it is necessary in order to preserve children from such a danger, must have a very small idea of the House of Lords and of his countrymen. In my view, this Bill is unjust, impolitic, and, I believe, absolutely unworkable in its present form, and I, for one, if it is not so modified as to get rid of the objections I entertain to it, shall certainly record my vote against it on the Third Reading.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I feel that my task in having in this important debate to reply to a statesman of the commanding knowledge and experience of the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down is a very difficult one; It is, perhaps, all the more so because I have been forcibly reminded, during the course of this debate, of one of the favourite sayings of the late Lord Granville, who for so many years led your

1483
Lordships House with such great applause, with regard to those who sit on these benches. He used to say, "What are we amongst so many?" Noble Lords who sit opposite are powerful, not only in possessing leaders of the great ability of the noble and learned Earl, but also in the formidable array which at all times enables them to appear for the moment as the dictators of the situation.
The noble Earl has himself concluded with an observation—I am not for a moment going to call it a threat—that your Lordships, in his opinion, would be justified, under certain circumstances, in rejecting the Bill on Third Reading. But when I reflect upon the reasons which the noble Earl gave for that course, I confess they did not seem to me to be even as strong as some of those which, allowing for the convictions of the speakers, caused other noble Lords opposite and right rev. Prelates to arrive at the same conclusion. The noble and learned Earl was chiefly concerned with the re-assertion of some of those ancient doctrines with regard to the sanctity and perpetuity of trusts which, I believe, are not held universally even by noble Lords opposite. I have heard those arguments used before, I think, by the noble and learned Earl himself in another place where we sat together for many years. I have heard them from illustrious lawyers who represent the same school of legal thought as the noble and learned Earl.
When I first had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons we were fighting the battle of University tests, and great lawyers, especially great ecclesiastical lawyers, came forward and asked what right a Liberal Government had to interfere with the ancient trusts of the Universities when nobody was prepared to say that those Universities and colleges were not doing a great and useful work. That is exactly what the noble and learned Earl has said to-day— that the voluntary schools are doing a good and useful work, and that therefore we are, ipso facto, morally estopped from interfering with the trusts. Those arguments have been long ago rejected by Parliament. I say with all respect to the noble and learned Earl that it is
1484
useless in the year 1906 to ask us to accept a series of propositions which Parliament has rejected over and over again since 1870. I may remind the noble and learned Earl, to go back to the great question of University tests, that there were in those days some who acknowledged that though it might be a right and proper thing to throw open the degrees and the honours of the universities to Jews and Nonconformists, they were obliged to stop there. They could not accept interference with the endowments of the colleges as distinct from the University itself. That for a great number of years was the position of Mr. Gladstone himself, but Parliament did not accept those doctrines; nor did the Liberal Party accept them, and eventually the Universities and colleges were thrown open.
We are told by the noble and learned Earl that if the proposals of the Bill are adopted the sanctity of property will be at an end and the direst consequences will follow. While desiring to treat with the greatest respect everything which falls from the lips of the noble and learned Earl, I am not prepared to be alarmed by these dire vaticinations, because, oddly enough, I have heard them all before in this very House, though a number of years ago. I was a listener in 1867—I believe it was the first time I ever stood within the precincts of this House—when I was still in my last year at the University at Cambridge, to that great education debate in which Lord Russell—a name always to be mentioned by Liberals in connection with the education question with the deepest reverence and respect—at the close of his great career and just before he handed over the leadership of the party to Mr. Gladstone, brought forward in your Lordships' House a series of propositions in regard to the future settlement of education. I well remember that oration. A young man could not possibly fail to be deeply impressed by that great speech front the lips of the veteran statesman. But, after he had spoken, there rose the then Lord President of the Council, the Duke of Marlborough. He implored their Lordships on no account to adopt the dangerous proposals which had just been placed before them by Lord Russell, and

1485
he assured them, just as the noble and learned Earl has assured us to-day, that if they did the sanctity of property would be at an end and the country would fee the effects of insecurity in every quarter. He finally concluded by imploring your Lordships' predecessors on no account to substitute for the existing institutions of the day another edifice, which, he said, would be one based upon insecure foundations and certain to involve all who stool near it in ruin; and he concluded by imploring them, in the words of the great Latin poet, not to erect an Excels œ turris tabulata unde altior esset casus, et insolitœ prœceps immane ruinœ.
Your Lordship's predecessors in title then adjoined and went home in a frame of mind looking forward to the no distant day when, Owing to the destructive plans of the Liberal Party, and of Lord Russell in particular, to judge by the words of the Duke of Marlborough, the satyr would be dancing among the ruins of St. James's Palace and the great owl would be building its nest with the remains of the Lord Chancellor's woolsack. But it so happened that all the proposals and some more which had been brought forward by Lord Russell were incorporated in an Act of Parliament in 1870, and in the year 1906 this House is still in existence, property is still secure, trusts have not been abolished in consequence of some changes; and we have the noble and learned Earl coming forward and asking us to take seriously a mere repetition of all those ancient fears. The noble and learned Earl commenced his observations by saying that we have no facts and no statistics, and that he hoped the Government would furnish them. I did not understand that he was asking whoever might follow him in debate—and I have that honour—to take up your Lordships' time by producing and reading long tables showing the total number of voluntary schools, the total number of council schools, the total number of local authorities, and matters of that kind.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I never asked for anything of the sort. What I asked for were Answers to Questions.
LORD FITZMAURICE: I understood the noble and learned Earl, in his opening sentence, to suggest that the House should be told something about the number of Schools upon which these changes would operate.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I said under Clause 4.
LORD FITZMAURICE: That is part of it, of course. So far as I know these statistics have already been given in another place, and although I have no authority to say so, I cannot conceive that there would be any objection to furnishing your Lordships before we go into Committee with statistics showing the total number of schools, the number of voluntary and council schools, how many are in urban areas and rural areas, how many will be affected by Clause 4 how many of them fall below the 5,000 limit, and all those matters. In alluding to the noble and learned Earl's request I did not do so in any hostile spirit, because it appeared to me a not unnatural inquiry. I am anxious to show the noble and learned Earl that in all matters where we can meet him we desire to do so.
As to the 5,000 limit, the question what special advantage there is in that figure has been raised by the noble Marquess who recently presided over the Board of Education. The origin of the matter was this. Those who are familiar with the history of local government in England are aware that in the year 1858 the first Local Government Act was passed, under which the owners and ratepayers of a parish or township could become subject to what was then called a local board. That Act was very considerably abused. A great number of really rural places calculated that if they could justify themselves in saying they were a quasi-rural area, they could rearrange the highway rate over the whole district. In that way a great number of small places gradually obtained urban powers, and, owing to the great difficulty there is in England of depriving any place of a privilege which Parliament has given it, these places, which are mainly rural in character, have gradually blossomed out into possessors of almost the full rights of an

1487
urban community. One of the objects of this Bill, as your Lordships are aware, is to distinguish between town and country, and therefore all that this subsection means is that where there is an urban area which, in its character, is not really urban, it should be treated under Clause 3 and not under Clause 4. There is no magic about the number 5,000. Some may think it a little too high, and others may regard it as too low; but I have told your Lordships the plain, unvarnished truth as to the origin of this clause. The position of those small urban districts, quite apart from all sectarian questions, has been constantly a source of difficulty to local administrators and to the Legislature, and the Government are perfectly aware that in dealing with them in this way they are treading in the footsteps of those who have gone before them. Of course, people may differ as to the exact limit of population which ought to be fixed, but it is not any such question which has excited the deep feelings shown in this debate.
We are making a strong and honest attempt finally to settle a great question, and we do not complain—it would be utterly unreasonable to do so—that our proposals are subjected to severe examination. But I think it would greatly facilitate our task if noble Lords who oppose the Bill would make their ideas as to what the settlement ought to be more clear than I venture to think they have so far succeeded in making them. When I read the letters sent to The Times by the highest dignitaries of the Church, by bishops and by deans, I am unable to recognise any unanimity or any coherent plan. I have noticed the same thing before. In 1902 there was that unfortunate divergence of opinion among those who might be looked upon as authoritative expositors of Church doctrine on these questions which makes any settlement so difficult. After all, if you differ from a man or from a public body you have at least a reasonable chance of coming to an agreement if you know clearly and definitely what that person or body wants. But that is not the case here.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, who I always mention on
1488
more grounds than one with the deepest personal respect, has written a pamphlet setting forth the objections to this Bill. I understand those objections, although I do not agree with them. But then I take up a speech of the Bishop of Carlisle who, I suppose, also speaks with authority. He is not a member of your Lordships' House, but I take it that he speaks on behalf of the Church. The Bishop of Carlisle has expressed a set of views absolutely different from those of the Bishop of Birmingham; and when I listened to the admirable speech of the most rev. Primate in your Lordships' House on Wednesday, I again seemed to be listening to a set of opinions which differed from those of both the Bishop of Birmingham and the Bishop of Carlisle.
There is a further difficulty. We have among us a layman of the highest character and reputation — he is unfortunately, no longer a Member of the other House of Parliament—who is apparently more able to express the views of a larger body of Church opinion than even the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church. I allude to Lord Hugh Cecil. In the days, of Lord Palmerston it used to be a joke that if you wanted to find out what was being thought in Church circles and what was likely to be done, it was far more important to ascertain the views of Lord Shaftesbury than the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury or of Lord Palmerston himself; and in this matter I am inclined to think that if you want to ascertain the views of the majority of Churchmen, of what may be called the fighting and energetic body of Church opinion, it is often quite as important to know what Lord Hugh Cecil thinks as to ascertain even what is thought by the highest dignitaries of the Church. Lord Hugh Cecil—and I make the comparison in no uncomplimentary spirit — is like the great statesman who was said in the eighteenth century to be the secret influence behind the Throne. He is a sort of ecclesiastical Lord Bute, the secret influence behind the Archiepiscopate; and it is necessary, if we are to ascertain the views of the Church, that we should know the views of Lord Hugh Cecil. All these views appear to

1489
be quite different. How, then, can you blame a Liberal Government if they are obliged to steer a course of their own and judge upon the facts that are accumulated in the Education Office?
A certain tone of bitterness has been imported into those debates apparently because of the idea that the Government are embarking on a course hostile to religion. There, again, the indictment is not always the same. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, so far as was able to follow his argument in the impassioned speech which he made and which we all listened to with great admiration, attacked the Bill because it was chiefly an attempt to set up undenominational religion at the expense of denominational religion. That is a point of view that we can understand. But the noble Duke who opened the debate yesterday took a different line. He said the Bill was an attack upon all religion, that it was an attack upon denominational and undenominational religion alike. We are, therefore, in a very difficult position. We do not know which of these indictments it is that we are called upon to answer. Broadly speaking, our answer is this. The people of this country are a religious people, This Bill entrusts large rights and duties to the educational authorities of the country, and it is not to be supposed that an educational authority elected by religious people will be likely at once to commence an anti-religious campaign. The law of England does not suppose that people will always act reasonably. Perhaps, if that were so, many of the laws would be unnecessary. But the law of England does not suppose that people will always act unreasonably, and many of the arguments which we have heard in the course of this debate seem to me to presuppose that the local authorities of this country are certain to act in an unreasonable manner and to abuse the powers given to them.
The contention that teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause will lead to a secular system is an attack not on this Bill but on the existing law. The Cowper-Temple clause now governs the education of the majority of the children of this country. The number of school departments, no doubt, as divided between
1490
voluntary schools and council schools is about equal, but when you come to work out the number of children who attend Council schools and those who attend voluntary schools there is a marked and growing preponderance of children in council schools; and I ask any of your Lordships who have had to do with local administration whether they have found in their experience that there has been any deterioration in the moral or religious education of the people as a result of the spread of council schools. I absolutely deny it. The Returns which we owe to a Motion by the most rev. Primate show the extreme care which the local education authorities of the country have evinced in their endeavour to furnish the children under their control with a good system, not only of secular, but of religious education.
We have heard a lot about Huddersfield. Huddersfield is the ewe lamb of these discussions. I should like to know a little more about Huddersfield. I remember that in 1887 there was a Commission, presided over by Lord Cross, which presented a very able Report. At that time a great deal of disturbance arose because it was found that in one or two districts in Wales there were school boards which gave no religious education, and we were told to look at the shocking results which would accrue from allowing this kind of thing to go on. But, when the matter came to be examined, it turned out that special arrangements had been made, and that in these districts, owing to the very strong and active religious life existing there, this education was given in a far more marked degree than elsewhere; it was not, however, given by the school board, but under a highly organised system. Bearing that in mind, I should like to know a little more with regard co Huddersfield before arriving at the conclusion that Huddersfield is the shocking example which is made out. In any case, one swallow does not make a summer. Huddersfield is not the whole of England, and one exception does not show that the council schools are rapidly drifting into indifference with regard to religious education. I venture to say exactly the same thing with regard to some other observations which

1491
have been made in this debate. For example, the noble Earl who spoke last night about Wales seemed to think himself entitled to argue that, because one particular county in Wales had declined to do a thing which all the other counties in Wales were willing to do, he was justified in asserting that the opinion of the inhabitants of Wales was equally, or almost equally, divided on the question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord misinterprets my noble friend. My noble friend was combating the assertion made by the President of the Board of Trade that Wales was unanimous. He showed that Wales was not unanimous.
LORD FITZMAURICE: The noble Earl, on the contrary, wished this House to believe that there was a wide divergence of opinion, and at one moment he rose to great heights of eloquence upon it. However, for an ordinary Englishman to interfere in a Welsh dispute is rather, a dangerous thing, and I will not pursue that subject further. I ask right rev. Prelates, in a perfectly friendly spirit, why they should suppose that that which has happened in regard to so many other branches of local effort should not happen with regard to education. In regard to this I desire to shelter myself behind an observation which many years ago I heard made in the House of Commons by no less a person than Mr. Disraeli. In a debate on a Valuation Bill he pointed out that nearly all those local and municipal institutions that we then had were originally in their inception due to local effort; that gradually, in the case of each, it was found that local effort was unable to rise to the increasing demand of the time; that the State had to interfere, and that those things which were originally due to local effort became what is now called municipalised and passed into the domain of local government.
I will give instances. The relief of the poor was originally in this country largely conducted by great private institutions, but the Elizabethan Poor Law substituted the State and local authorities for private institutions. Our roads were
1492
chiefly made by private persons or associations of private persons, but gradually it was found that local effort could not keep them up to the level which modern requirements demanded and they passed under public control. Our hospitals are largely managed by private enterprise, but the isolation hospitals are gradually passing into public control; and there is a Committee considering at this moment whether the hospitals should not be taken over of subsidised by the State. It is no reflection to say that, with a population which has gone up by leaps and bounds, the noble efforts which the predecessors of right rev. Prelates made are now perfectly inadequate to give this country the education it requires.
The most rev. Primate seemed to think that we were unwilling to recognise the noble efforts that have been made by the Church in past times. We who sit on this side of the House, no doubt, have had some ancient quarrels with right rev. Prelates, but at least we all recognise that, though we may have differed as to the means, our intention and object have always been the same. It may be perfectly true—it is true—that in the eighteenth century the Church was indifferent to a great number of things which she has taken up in the 19th and 20th centuries, but we recognise that, although we have not always been able to agree with the methods, in modern times the efforts of the Church have been great and it must not be taken as any reflection on right rev. Prelates or their predecessors if we venture to say with great respect that the time has come when, in the matter of education, the State must intervene to relieve the private individual of doing that which, in these days, the private individual cannot do with efficiency.
I now come to the burning question of dogma. I have sat on Education Committees with laymen and with clergymen and Nonconformist ministers, with men of all political opinions, and I have invariably found that heated discussions about dogma and about all the questions which play around that word sink into comparative insignificance and find their level when a certain number of sensible English gentlemen are gathered round

1493
a table and have to draw up a syllabus of religious education. Therefore it is that, while I admit that many ingenious points have been put to us in this debate which it may be difficult to answer, I hold that if you trust the people of this country and their elected representatives no injustice will be done. And, in regard to dogma, may I implore right rev. Prelates to remember what I know must be present to their minds, that we are not to-night discussing University questions or even a question of secondary education, but that we are discussing the education of the poorest children who, ex hyfothesi, are all below sixteen years of age. How it possibly can be conceived that these children are capable of understanding or of taking in everything that we mean by dogma is to me a mystery. When I heard the right rev. Prelate yesterday refer to those schools with which his name is so honourably connected in the various districts of London, and when I heard him talk about the necessity of the children understanding the doctrine of the Sacraments of the Church, the history of the Church, the doctrine of the Atonement, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I felt that if these poor children understand all these things they must be the most wonderful children in the world. No attempt is made in the great public schools where most of your Lordships were educated to give in the junior classes one-fifteenth part of the religious instruction which the right rev. Prelate insists upon in these schools.
I wish to place myself in regard to this matter under the aegis of a late luminary of the Church. Cardinal Newman, in the interesting book in which he gives a history of the formation of his own opinions and of his own life, says—
" From the age of fifteen, dogma has been the fundamental principle of my religion. I know no other religion. I cannot enter into the idea of any other sort of religion; religion as a mere sentiment is to me a dream and a mockery."
It was from the age of fifteen that Cardinal Newman tells us he became able to understand dogmatic religion and capable of taking in the great truths which afterwards influenced his life and the whole religious life if this country. Why, if we have it on the authority of
1494
Cardinal Newman that dogmatic education can only begin after fifteen years of age, are we to tear one another to pieces because we think that the Cowper-Temple clause does not give a sufficient amount of religious education? We never have claimed that there is a Cowper-Temple religion. The Cowper-Temple clause is nothing whatever but a series of negations. But what we do claim is that Cowper - Temple instruction is the basis and the foundation upon which other and subsequent religion can be built up; and if any teacher in a Cowper-Tetnple school uses his position to instil irreligious or sceptical opinions into the children, the people of this country will see that that teacher is made to find his proper place. They will be quite strong enough to do it without your Lordships tying them by minute rules and regulations in the schedule of an Act of Parliament.
I have for years worked at this question in a practical way, and I had hoped, more strongly perhaps than I can express in words, that I might live to see the day when these miserable quarrels should cease. I implore your Lordships not to approach this Bill in the spirit of the noble and learned Earl, who raised-legal points and dug up the forgotten ashes of old controversies, but to try to unite upon it; and if you think that there are some things in the Bill, which do not carry out our intentions I hope you will try to put your id0eas-upon the Paper so that we shall understand what they are, and not enter into a sort of educational Donnybrook fair in Committee with the intention on the part of your Lordships of tearing the Bill into rags and tatters.
There is a delightful book which the youngest generation as it grows up is always instructed to read, and which contains the experiences of three English travellers who go to foreign parts. They go to the ancient city of Prague. They are there shown a horse, and are told that it is the horse of the famous Imperial General, General Wallenstein, and the attendant says—
"The head of the animal is new, the body of another horse is substituted, the legs have been repaired, but all the rest is the original animal."

1495
It appeared to me that some of your Lordships yesterday seemed to adumbrate a state of things under which when we meet in the autumn you were to educe the Bill to the condition of Wallenstein's horse. If we do that we are running the risk of a great Parliamentary crisis. This Bill is an educational Bill. We have been told that it is not. We assert that we are making an honest effort to clear out of the road this great religious difficulty. If we do that we shall have done a great work for education. We ask you to remove this religious difficulty, which is a snag blocking up the course of the stream of education. For that reason I venture with all submission to implore your Lordships, as I believe you will to-day, to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I am confident that it ought not to be beyond the capacity of this House to unite and obtain for the Bill what is far more important, the confirmation of posterity and the sanction of time.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I must crave the indulgence of the House in intervening after the utterances of one of the most eloquent of the veterans of debate on this most important subject. A reference was made by the noble Lord who has just spoken to the occupants of these Benches with regard to our apparent want of unity. The noble Lord spoke in such a kindly tone of my right rev. brethren that I feel quite certain there was nothing ill-natured intended in his reference. We can only say that if the bishops on the bench did not represent the different aspects and phases of public opinion they would be far less entitled to the confidence of the country than I trust they are. In a certain measure, both from their numbers and the greatness of their responsibility, they correspond to the members of the Cabinet, and I do not suppose that even in the sacred precincts of the Cabinet there is always absolute harmony or agreement upon the most important topics that from time to time arise.
We have been appealed to in reference to this Bill to regard it as an instalment of a final settlement. I confess that we regard this Bill as presenting very little
1496
prospect of a final settlement, and as offering very little hope or expectation of peace upon this great question. There were, no doubt, many grievances felt on both sides in regard to religious education —there were grievances of Nonconformist ratepayers, parents, and teachers, and grievances of Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Jewish ratepayers, who had to support the provided schools as well as their own. There were, as I have said, grievances on both sides, and I had hoped that as there was this sort of mandate to take up the question all these grievances might be dealt with.
We have acknowledged that in single school areas in country districts the Nonconformists have a real grievance, but the denominationalists also have a similar grievance, for there are 1,300 single provided school areas. We had hoped that it would have been possible to introduce a Bill honestly and satisfactorily to remove those grievances on both sides, and to provide the foundations for a real settlement and the hope of a lasting peace. Instead of that we have this great measure, great on account of its scope and its disturbing influences; and we can only say that the attempt which is no doubt being made to remove certain grievances will introduce many others, religious, educational, and civic. The consequence is that we can only regard with the gravest apprehensions the results of such a measure, if it is carried into law. I think I may say, on behalf of my right rev. brethren who are taking part in this debate, that we assent to the Second Reading of this Bill without a division on two grounds. No one pretends that the provisions of the Bill, or, at any rate, many of them, have been adequately discussed elsewhere, and this being so its provisions should be subjected in your Lordships' House to the most searching investigation. In the second place, the Second Reading of the Bill has been passed, as we know, by an overwhelming majority elsewhere, and I am sure we shall be agreed that it is entitled to the most considerate treatment, scrupulous, careful, and respectful, as so great a majority fully deserves.
I do not intend to enter into many of the extraordinary features which, this

1497
Bill contains, and which were amply and most brilliantly dealt with last night. We were invited yesterday to look at the Bill not as clergy but as citizens. We bishops. I hope, are capable of looking at this great question as citizens, but as Christian citizens, as citizens who have a duty towards the children; and I think we may ask whether, with teachers who need not teach, with children who need not attend, and with religion treated as an extra subject, it is at all likely that religious instruction is going to be adequately given to the children of our people. We are forced to look upon the subject as men who have a very sacred commission and a grave responsibility, and we ask whether the facilities that are offered to us under Clause 3, which have been demonstrated to be delusive and nugatory and entangled with all kinds of exasperating difficulties at each stage—whether those facilities are likely to offer any hope that we shall be able to retain the privilege of giving denominational teaching in our schools. This clause presents as many difficulties as facilities, and means practically the wreckage, the destruction, of our schools.
We are told that this is an undenominational Bill, and that its object is to establish an undenominational system.
" It is an undenominational Bill and we have to regard it in that light."
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. We have been told in the historic discussions of this great question that the undenominational system is the counterpart of the voluntary system, which it supplemented, but did not supplant. But this Bill destroys the voluntary system, and therefore the compact is at an end. Many of us say that the time surely has come when the Cowper-Temple clause, upon which that compact seemed to hinge, might well disappear. We contend that liberal and just statesmanship would surely, in any large measure dealing with such a question, grant facilities all round, and would regard facilities as the rights of the parents and not give them as grudging concessions to sectarian pressure.
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign affairs practically told us that we ought to be very glad to have so good a system as the undenominational system continued, extended,
1498
and made almost universal. May I ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments to the working of this undenominational system, and the character it assumes according to the description of those who are specially supporting it I have the greater pleasure in referring to this subject because Mr. Birrell, in introducing the Bill, referred to the working of the system in the county of Hampshire and to the excellence of the syllabus which there prevails. Hampshire is not unique in that respect. At Liverpool and Bootle, in Lincolnshire, and Oxfordshire,and elsewhere we see excellent and admirable syllabuses. Therefore it is very natural for the noble Lord to ask, Why should you not be satisfied with these excellent, admirable syllabuses? The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty told us last night that the undenominational system was a form of religion which could be accepted by all alike, and the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, declared that
"this religion meets the requirements of the vast majority of the parents."
Now, with regard to the working of this system. On looking through a list of 320 local authorities I find that there are seventy which publish no syllabuses. I am aware that in a few cases religious teaching may be given without a syllabus. The case of Huddersfield is not at all an unique and isolated instance. I have here a list of seventy local authorities which publish no syllabus at all—twenty-one are administrative counties, five county boroughs, ten boroughs over 20,000, and about forty boroughs with a population of over 10,000. After thirty-five years of the application of this system, we find seventy local authorities declining to publish any religious syllabus. And when we look at the syllabuses themselves what do we find? Do they show any sort of agreement? They vary in different counties. Are these syllabuses likely to improve? Is there likely to be an increase through suddenly flooding the country with this great extension of the undenominational system? Is it not far more likely that under the operation of the Bill the irreligious character of the education will increase? The excellence of the teaching in many provided schools I do

1499
not deny, but that excellence is very much due to healthy rivalry between provided and voluntary schools, the examples of Church schools, and the influence of good and earnest men interested in both classes of.schools. In passing, I should like to pay a tribute of the deepest respect and regard to the late Lord Northbrook, the influence of whose character and whose piety and truth and moral strength are reflected, I believe, in that very Hampshire syllabus to the excellence of which Mr. Birrell called public attention.
The undenominational system has been working side by side with a voluntary system guaranteed by pledges and trusts, and I deny that there has been any friction arising from the religious difficulty until on the eve of elections when political excitement is stimulated; but with 14,000 voluntary or non-provided schools added to those under undenominational control I look with grave apprehension to the discord that will result and the effect upon religious instruction. Suppose you have 6,000 apples, many of them very good and many of them very bad, and suddenly you add 14,000 apples to them. May I ask whether the 14,000 added applet will derive goodness from the good apples or badness from the bad apples? We know what will be the effect if the whole system is to be made uniform. Is it not absolutely certain that the defective side of the undenominational system will swell and grow and attach itself to the new group of added schools?
We are told that Cowper-Temple instruction has common elements of Christianity, and that it represents the teaching of the Church in the first three centuries. I have looked into the matter and can see not the slightest ground for such an assertion. There is nothing in connection with the Cowper-Temple clause or with the undenominational system of religion that guarantees to any school any religious teaching or any Bible or Christian teaching. It depends entirely upon the will and whim of the local authority. Mr. Bryce is a statesman whose authority in all matters of history we are delighted to honour and respect, but when he tells us that the Christianity of the first three centuries represented Cowper-Templeism I
1500
confess I am amazed. The Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of our Lord, and the Divinity of Christ—this has ever been the foundation of Christianity; and there is no sort of difference between the Christianity of the twentieth century and that of the third century in that respect. If we, with the responsibility of teaching the children, shrink back in any way from insisting that they should be taught the foundation of Christianity we should be faithless to our trust, and as faithless to the Church of the first three centuries as to the Church of the twentieth century.
Reference has been made to dogma as if it were possible to teach little children without dogma. People are apparently extraordinarily afraid of the word dogma. It is the phrase they are afraid of, not the thing. You take your little child on your knee and teach him the simplest text out of the Scripture —" Suffer little children to come unto Me." If you are a Christian parent and teach your little child the meaning of that text, you cannot explain the last" word of it without impressing upon the child's mind the greatest, the profoundest dogma of the Christian faith. I am told that we should not confuse the minds of children with elaborate subtleties. I have here a letter which I received the night before last from the Isle of Wight. The writer objects to children in the schools of the Isle of Wight being taught that the earth, goes round the sun, and not that the sun goes round the earth. He objects, also to the teaching that the earth is round, and he prefers that children, should be taught that the earth is flat Children are taught that the earth is round and that the earth goes round the sun as scientific facts; this is not taught by subtle arguments or by elaborate mathematical calculations. We are content to teach the children the truths upon which we are confident, without muddling their heads with difficult, elaborate, and scientific arguments.
We are sometimes spoken of as a Church which is divided. I venture to say that on this matter we are a practically united Church. High Churchmen, evangelical Churchmen, and devout

1501
Broad Churchmen are united on this question. There is no question which has stirred the Church in recent years and provoked such a remarkable measure of unity as this religious question. The accusation that the Church has shrunk from its duty of Bible teaching is absolutely baseless. We are true, I believe truer now than we have ever been, to the position which was taken up at the time of the Reformation in regard to Holy Scripture, and we contend that any attempt to teach children a merely vague religion of sentiment is false to the children themselves and to the real feeling of our country. The people at large do not expect in Church schools, and I do not think that they expect it in provided schools, that instead of our Christianity there should be imparted to the children what is practically Unitarianism. We contend that to the children should be given such teaching as is quite definitely the teaching of the Church, and is not capable of being confounded with the views of those who are Unitarians.
I should like to echo my own father's words. My father the late Bishop of Liverpool was indeed regarded as a true and faithful representative of evangelical opinion, and in one of his last books he used these words—
" It is not enough to say we believe the Bible. We must distinctly understand what the leading facts and doctrines of the Bible are."
This is exactly the point where creeds are useful; and I have often heard my father quote the famous words of Burke—
"Subscription to Scripture alone is the most astonishing idea, I ever heard, and will amount to no subscription at all."
If our schools are to be taken from us, if the voluntary system is to be abolished, then we on our part protest that the Cowper-Temple clause, which may have served its generation very usefully, is at present an obstacle. We cannot be satisfied with a system which is not necessarily religious, and we protest against a system being made universal which is not necessarily Christian. We cannot pretend to be satisfied with a system which is not even in its present working uniform, and which will not be continued with certainty from year to
1502
year. We cannot be satisfied with a system which apparently will consign religious teaching to teachers whose capacity for teaching will, under the present Bill, be more or less fortuitous; and we cannot be content again, with a system which will pretend to give religious instruction to pupils who are not required to attend school. That is what is proposed to be substituted in the 14,000 schools which have been giving definite religious teaching.
I believe the country is right in making its protest in the name of religion, and it makes its protest because it believes that the Bill, in its present form, is declining straight down to secularism. The claim that the undenominational system is Christianity is very largely fallacious. The system has no foundation in any sort of religious standard, it varies in different parts of the country, and it is not necessarily even religious or Christian. We repudiate the wholesale imposition and endowment of this undenominational so-called religion. If either peace or truth must be dispensed, with it is going to be peace and not truth, for it is better to have truth without peace than peace without saving truth.
*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as there are many other noble Lords who desire to address you, the remarks I have to make shall be brief. The position which members of the Roman Catholic Church are taking up in this House with regard to the Bill has been clearly put before your Lordships by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Lord below me (Lord Killanin) explained to the House yesterday how there was no possibility of placing any Roman Catholic school within the corners of Clause 1. I intend only to say one word or two as to why we consider that we are justified in demanding some other place in the scheme of national education which is sought to be established by this Bill.
Mr. Forster,in introducing the Act of 1870, said it would no doubt be a surprise to the House when they found that the Government had determined to recommend the adoption of the principle

1503
of compulsory attendance; and he concluded his speech with these words—
" Again, there are many points "which have to be taken into consideration. There are the rights of parents, the rights of minorities, and the rights of conscience, which must be respected."
I maintain that the moment the State stepped in and compelled a parent to send his child to an elementary school, the State took upon itself the duty of seeing as far as possible that what was taught in the school should not offend against the rights of parents, the rights of minorities, or the rights of conscience. The President of the Board of Education has cast doubt upon the efficacy of the conscience clause, and we maintain that there is no reason why, if they can be provided without grave inconvenience and without considerable expense to the public, we should not have schools which would meet the wishes of the parents.
Mr. Birrell has told us—and in quoting his words I do not wish to imply that I consider the}' were uttered in any unfriendly spirit—that minorities must suffer. I demur to the word "must." That minorities do suffer no one knows better than those who, like myself, belong to a family who have a long list of stories of civil and religious disabilities borne with patient protest in the past and in the hope that they would one day be removed. I hope that the memory of those times will prevent us from ever adopting a form of protest which I for one consider undignified—that which has been adopted by the passive resister. We believe in the justice of our claim and from it we will not waiver, and whatever happens we shall continue to the end hoping and trusting that this claim which we consider just will have careful consideration, and appeal to that sense of justice which has always existed in the hearts of our fellow countrymen.
With regard to Part II. of the Bill I wish to make an appeal to the Government. When the Act of 1902 was passed a duty was thrown upon county councils which they did not seek, which in many instances they especially desired should not be thrown upon them, but which the Legislature in its wisdom thought would be better entrusted to
1504
them. They have done their best. It is needless to disguise the fact that their best has not in every instance met with the thorough approbation of those around, them; and these objections are crystallised in the delegation clause of Part II. I will not say, though it does rather strike one in looking at it, that Part II. was drafted by a man who, while "willing to wound," was "yet afraid to strike." the noble Lord in charge of this Bill in your-Lordships' House has pointed out that the Government thought, and I have no doubt thought rightly, that, considering the system that had already-been inaugurated, it would be unwise to change the county council as the local authority. But I appeal to the Government, in compelling them to delegate some of those powers to other bodies specified in Part II., to give a patient hearing to every Amendment which may be moved to enable county councils to have a somewhat larger and freer hand in drawing up these schemes, in order that the knowledge which they have acquired with much patient care and toil during the past four years may be brought to bear, and allowed to have full play in the construction of the schemes which the Bill contemplates, they shall be obliged to form.
LORD HATHERTON: My Lords, in the very few words which I shall address to your Lordships I shall confine myself solely to the clause which affects trusts. As sole trustee of a school I felt it my duty to make inquiries as to my position, with regard to the very unusual provisions, of this Bill, and during my researches I came across a book by a very able man entitled "Duties of Trustees," In which, appears the following words —
"the third duty of a trustee is to adhere to the terms of his trust in all things great and small, important and seemingly unimportant. This is his very plainest duty; no trustee would ever deny it, or pretend to be ignorant of it, yet it is his hardest, unless from the the very beginning he makes up his mind to it, and then it is as easy as eating bread and; butter…Never argue or reply to argument, but barricade yourself behind your will or your deed, and whilst profoundly regretting your inability to oblige, refuse to budge a foot.…To behave like ibis is not to be cantankerous, but to be honest, not to be pigheaded, but to be wise."

1505
Perhaps your Lordships will be surprised to hear that the author of those words is the author of this Bill. I purpose, and I hope that all school trustees throughout the land will do the same, to abide by the instructions thus given by Mr. Birrell.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I feel that I rise under a double disadvantage. Those of your Lordships who still remain must be very weary and fearful of repetitions, and I myself confess to some weariness of these educational discussions, and yet there are some things which I earnestly desire to say to the House. Some speakers have promised us short speeches, and have given us long ones. I do not venture to make any promise, but I beg your Lordships' indulgence and patience while I say what it is in my heart to say.
First, may I say one word with reference to a speech of great power and eloquence to which we listened last night—the speech of Lord Robertson? One thing in the course of that speech I was glad to hear, because I venture to hope it may be of value south of the Tweed. The noble and learned Lord told us that—although he belonged to a minority with strong denominational convictions when, at home, he was not a passive resister. Deprecating as I do passive resistance, although I was glad to hear that statement, as I listened to it I felt that, being a Scotsman, the noble and learned Lord probably takes it out in theological argument, but we English are differently constituted. What goes down, as I find in my experiences in the country, deepest in the common social life of a good many ordinary English people is the compulsion to pay a rate. Therefore I do hope that, in whatever shape this Bill may eventually become law— and I am standing here to support it— we may hear no more of passive resistance.
There were two other points in the noble and learned Lord's speech to which I would refer. One was his attack on Clause 2, subsection (5). His complaint with reference to that clause was that the local authority was not bound to take over a school, and therefore that the
1506
school might be destroyed. As I read subsection (5), the intention is clearly that the trustees of a Church school should be free to negotiate with the local authorities and to require that facilities for religious teaching should be given. I suppose it is pleaded on the other side that the local authority is free to refuse to negotiate—to decline to take the school—without any reason. If that is so, and the school is liable to be left derelict, who is to blame? If I remember rightly, the Minister for Education in another place proposed that there should be an agreement to come under a mutual obligation, and that agreement was declined. I do not think we ought to throw any special blame on the local authority under the Bill as it now stands. If it needs Amendment in this particular, in order to do justice and to provide a reasonable safeguard, let us in the autumn address ourselves to some reasonable Amendment. What I felt as I listened to the noble Lord's attack upon this Bill was that the root of his opposition was really his mistrust of local authorities. That is what lies at the root of very much of the opposition to this Bill. All those who are influenced by this mistrust—if I may venture to say so to your Lordships—are really forgetting the claims of common Christian citizenship. I do not see how, in a constitutional country, we can go forward doing all our various parts in common Christian citizenship unless we are going to trust the local authority, the elected representatives of the people specially concerned, in regard to their own affairs. If there is any one obligation which may pre-eminently be called an obligation of common Christian citizenship, it is the education of the children of our poorer fe low countrymen.
Another point in the noble Lord's speech which calls for criticism is to my mind his attack on Bible teaching. I felt that such an attack came curiously from a Scotsman, and I could not but feel that the noble Lord, in that part of his speech, showed a singular absence of that spirit of comprehensive charity on which depends our success in the region of common Christian citizenship. I was also a little surprised by this attack, because it did not exhibit that calm

1507
impartiality of judgment—to use the language of the Prayer in this House— "free from all partial affections," which so pre-eminently distinguishes the noble Lord himself an I his colleagues when they sit on the floor of the House in their judicial capacity. Therefore I have ventured to appeal from the noble Lord as a member of a political Party to the noble and learned Lord as a Judge.
Now, my Lords, I would put it to you whether the only practical way of settling this question is not the way which I was prepared to call the way of compromise, but as my brother of Southwark does not like the word "compromise" I will call it the way of reason, the way of good practical sense, and the way of good Christian citizenship. There may be many defects in the Bill, but taking it as a whole—and it is as a whole that we must discuss it—the Bill is an honest attempt to solve this very complex and difficult question on these principles. We are told that it is not logical. In my younger days I was one of those who had the privilege of being taught logic at Oxford; and I do not agree with the statement. I do not like to hear this slur east upon the Bill by persons many of whom have never studied logic, and who say that it is an illogical Bill. If you admit that it is the duty of the State to train and rear up the best citizens, and if you agree, as I think you do, that the New Testament is the best of all practical instruments for attaining that end, I say that a Bill which bases itself upon the plain and honest and devout teaching of the Bible in the hands of a good teacher is a logical Bill. As to the logic of extreme opponents on the one side or the other, I say that in the face of this complex and burning question it is logic divorced from commonsense.
There are two classes of persons who are conscientiously opposed to the Bill. All conscientious opposition deserves our greatest consideration. The two classes to which I refer are the extreme secularists and the extreme denominationalists. These I hold to be the real opponents of the Bill. There are many other persons who oppose from various incidental reasons which we need not go into; but these two classes overlook two very important things. First, they overlook
1508
the fact that we ought to hold our particularist views so as not to forget that we are citizens. The secularists, I must admit, with few exceptions, have recognised this, and I am grateful to them for that recognition, because I myself should fear the consequences of a secular system. But I am bound sorrowfully to admit that a great many of our denominationalists—what I may call high denominationalists—have failed to see it, and I regret that this is so. I regret it especially because, if I understand the matter rightly, this forgetfulness is bringing about the unhappy result that the contest is tending to become, and is in danger of becoming, a contest between the spirit of ecolesiasticism and the spirit of citizenship. That is a deplorable thing. Although I have the greatest respect for my high denominational brethren, I am constantly struck by one thing. There are no men more possessed by a burning desire for visible unity, and yet they of all others are the men who stereotype our divisions.
Then the second thing which both secularists and high denominationalists are overlooking is the person chiefly concerned—namely, the little child. When I look at this matter as a practical educationist, I ask myself what would be the result if we established a secular system, or a secular system with facilities, such as Mr. Chamberlain has indicated, in the hope of satisfying the denominationalists. If you establish a secular system, you may give as many facilities as you please, but you will practically close the Bible to thousands upon thousands of our little children during their growing and impressionable years, especially the children of the destitute and derelict classes, so that they may grow up without any of those refining and uplifting influences which came to most of us we can hardly remember how, but they came to us in our infancy, through long familiarity with the teaching and praying in connection with the reading of the Books of the New Testament. I say that this will be a tremendous misfortune to the future of our English race. I do not say that these children will grow up pagans. We have a great army of teachers who are giving much good instruction, but

1509
you must remember the disabilities of the teachers under such a system. These teachers would have to stand face to face with these children all through the years of their growing life, and all the time the one Book which they must not open before the children would be the Bible. I venture in this connection to appropriate a phrase which a highly distinguished and respected combatant in this matter, Lord Hugh Cecil, used the other day. I would say: "What a gamble in souls !" I repeat that this Bill adopts the way of common sense, or good citizenship, or compromise. The way adopted by the Bill is the true way of endeavouring to solve the question.

I am grateful that the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and his friends have decided not to reject this Bill on Second Reading, but to accept it, and then to consider Amendments. I sincerely wish that all we bishops and clergy had taken the same method from the beginning. If that had been done, I think we should have been farther forward towards a solution of the difficulty. We have had a great deal of denunciation. I deprecate all such denunciation. I believe it to carry with it some dangerous consequences about which we have not thought sufficiently. Is this denunciation all over? Mr. Birrell I noticed the other day in another place expressed the optimistic view that it was over. I wish I could join him in that opinion, but living in the country as I do, my impression is different; I believe it to be only diverted. I fear that the denunciation is not over, and that it will go on unless the most rev. Primate, who I know dislikes it as heartily as I do, and all my brother bishops and noble Lords opposite, throw the weight of their influence against it. I make this appeal very seriously, because I believe it is a most grave matter, both in regard to the best interests of our English Church and the spirit of Christianity amongst our English people.

I would emphasise the need for this appeal by two illustrations, both taken from my own immediate experience. I appeal to those who have influence with the ordinary delegates of the English Church Union, and to the noble Viscount
1510
opposite (Viscount Halifax) in particular, because I am sure he dislikes this denunciation and bitterness as much as I do. I appeal that all possible influence should be brought to bear to prevent good clergymen with narrow views going about our country districts as some of them are doing. One of those good men came to the precincts of my Cathedral the other day, and, within earshot of my own house, delivered a speech containing this kind of language:—
" He contended that only when they had taught, the children to believe the dogmas of the Catholic faith was it safe to go on with the simple teaching of the Bible. To attempt to teach a little child, say, the Book of Genesis without being taught the dogmas of the Catholic faith was absurd, detestable, and monstrous. That remark would apply to all other books of the Bible with the exception perhaps of those few which were purely historical. They should reject and fight to the bitter end this deceptive, delusive, and detestable simple Bible teaching."
I feel, however good the speaker may be, that that is very mischievous teaching to our plain country people. I make this appeal in the hope that it may be for the good of the Church, and that it may help to check such language. In the same connection, the day before I came up for this debate I came across a glaring poster of the Church Schools' Emergency League, which was being posted all over our Church schools. I dare not unfold the poster in this House; it would disturb the harmonies; but it is accompanied by a leaflet to the following effect:—
"To all Christian people. The Education Bill banishes the Bible from all elementary schools during school hours. Dare we, a professedly Christian people, support a Bill which discredits religion, dishonours the Word of God, and defrauds the ' little ones? "
I do not stop to consider how that fits in with the other High Church declaration which I quoted, but I do say that it is the plain duty of all moderate people to try and infuse a better spirit into that section of our Church. I do not think that this sort of propaganda is doing any great harm to the Bill; on the contrary I think it is turning the feeling of the country in favour of it; but as one who is in favour of the Bill I am sorry that it should be helped by such advocacy. Moreover I feel that it is doing a vast amount of harm to our English Church.

1511
Now I will turn to the reasonable opposition to the Bill. This opposition I take to be mainly threefold. First, there is the purely political and Parliamentary opposition. So long as that is sincere, it is of great value, and I cannot but feel that it has helped in another place to improve the Bill, and I hope that in this House it may still further improve it. But again I deplore the denunciation and wild language of some who ought to be leaders in the political world. An ex-Cabinet Minister has declared that, if this Bill passes, rural England will be turned into a howling wilderness. There is no statement of a responsible person which has given me such a high opinion of the Bill as that one, because the speaker must have been very hard up for arguments if he had to descend to language of that kind—to compare the Bill, in the language of the prophet Joel, to a plague of locusts with the Garden of Eden before it and a howling wilderness behind it. But I notice that that speech was made in the Albert Hall, and I have long come to the conclusion that the Albert Hall, especially in a Primrose atmosphere, must be presided over by some mischievous sprite who takes a special pleasure in luring Conservative orators to say foolish things.
But I come now to a much more serious opposition, and one deserving a great deal more respect, and that is the opposition of our clergy throughout the country. This opposition may be traced, to a considerable extent, to two things— anger and fear. I hold that it is not at all unnatural—it is very natural, and I sympathise with it, though I cannot join in it. This Bill, unfortunately, came upon them at a time when they were still very sore about the General Election—a soreness which I myself happily escaped, being far away in the Egyptian Soudan, and perhaps in consequence I am able to consider the Bill in a calmer frame of mind. They are naturally sore also at being dislodged from their traditional position in regard to their schools—a position in which we all agree many of them lived a life of great self-sacrifice for the good of the children, and of much self-devotion.
1512
In our country parishes, in thousands of homes, there has been an immense amount of self-denial exercised for the good of these children, and devoted work done which has been little recognised and has received very often little gratitude even on the spot. They have also in many cases been influenced by their fears with, regard to the future education of these children. In all this I sympathise with them, but I cannot join them. I cannot agree with them, because, in the first place, I think their fears are mistaken. I believe their pessimistic forecasts, which some politicians have encouraged them to make, are altogether mistaken. I see no real ground for them. On the other hand, I hold that their attacks upon the Bill are belated. They are attacks which should have been made upon, the Bill of 1902. I have ventured to lift up my voice and say as much again, and again, but my voice is a negligible quantity in these matters. I said that these attacks are altogether belated. The man attacked should be not the present Minister for Education, but the Prime Minister of 1902; and the thing to bear in mind is not confiscation but the receipt of rate aid. It always takes some time, when a great change comes, for us in any respect calmly to review our new position, and I have good hope that by and bye our clergy will find that we as a Church are in as good a position as we were before, and that our work prospers more than it ever did.
Now I come to the last form of opposition—namely, that of those whom I ventured to call high denominationalists. That is the third main element of the opposition, which, like Aaron's rod, seems likely to swallow the others. We are told in all earnestness and sincerity by good and earnest men that they would rather have secularism than plain and free Bible teaching. I think they are wrong, but they are very much to be respected. They say that undenominational teaching is essentially a bad foundation. Again I differ, but I listen with all respect. My brother of Birmingham has spoken somewhat to this effect, and he has added that he is passionately

1513
devoted to the solution of Mr. Chamberlain. I am not surprised. If I lived in Birmingham I too might perhaps become passionately devoted to Mr. Chamberlain's schemes. But the strange thing about it is that even while Mr. Chamberlain, a political Gallio in these matters, is proposing his secularism, which is to be adorned by facilities, he has to confess in the same breath that in his own city of Birmingham, when something of that sort was tried, it proved a failure. If the thing fails in Birmingham, what about other places? If this happens in the green tree, what of the dry? Another man to whose utterances we all listen with the greatest interest, and one whom I personally regard as of the salt of the earth in English politics, Lord Hugh Cecil, goes further, and says that the teaching shadowed forth in the Bill, which I call plain and free Bible teaching, will be ultimately subversive of Christianity. There is a great deal of saving grace in that word "ultimately"; but he adds further that it is a new religion. If this indictment is true, I would say to all those who make it, why have you held your peace these thirty-six years? Why have you allowed all these millions of Church children to be subject, in their impressionable years, to this new religion, which presumably, from your laying such emphasis upon it, you consider to be a religion different from, and far inferior to, Christianity?
Another question to be asked is, have the Nonconformists of England really gone over to this religion? We say no. The only solution which I can see to this difficulty is that Lord Hugh Cecil as he looks over modern life sees a vast spectre—let us call it a Darwinian spectre—which is driving before it out of our heart and life the doctrines of sin and grace. He may be right, he may be wrong; but in this I venture to say your Lordships will agree he is profoundly mistaken. He finds the fons et origo mali, the source of all this mischief—where? Not in scientific scepticism—not in commercial materialism—not in the origin of species, or in South African mines, or anything of that sort, but in the Cowper-Temple teaching of the Bible to the little children of the poor. I cannot account for it except that he sees all these things
1514
through his own high denominational atmosphere. This strange "new religion" most of us have been teaching all our lives. The Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Liverpool—half at any rate of the Church of England—have been teaching it and hardly anything else all their lives. For these forty years it has been going on; in Church schools, and board schools, and in all sorts of places, it has been taught to little children; and in multitudes of Christian homes. They have been doing it all this time without knowing it, like M. Jourdain talking prose.
But that is not the whole of it. Your Lordships yourselves—almost every one of you—have been brought up on exactly this kind of instruction. I will not detain you with many words of my own on the subject, though, having been engaged in all grades of education from the ragged school to the university itself, I have had some experience of the subject; but I will give you the words of one of the most distinguished of the present masters in public schools, namely Mr. Page, of the Charterhouse. What does he say? In a speech the other day, which I should be glad if noble Lords who are afraid of Bible teaching would read throughout, after an excellent argument, he says this:—
" I think I have shown that simple Christian teaching not only can be but actually is given, and I refuse to believe that what is done without offence and without complaint in higher schools cannot also be accomplished in elementary ones. But how? Quite simply. Put the Bible in your teachers' hands, train, them to understand its plain meaning, and then to use it honestly. … ' Hinc lucem et pocula sacra,' which bids us all from that pure and unsullied source freely drink deep draughts of light and inspiration. And one last word. Trust the teachers. Trust them freely and from the first, and then your wise confidence will be paid back to you in overflowing measure into your osom."
I think that is good advice.
In this connection I refer for one moment to another distinguished teacher in our public schools, the son of a great Archbishop and himself no less distinguished—namely, Mr. Benson. What does he say? He says that the method of public schools as here indicated is the right method, and if you are to give the best teaching to the young you must approach them not through metaphysical dogmas but through their heart and life,

1515
through their emotional nature, teaching them of a Person, and that Person our Lord and Master in the Gospel. All of us who have had anything to do with practical teaching know that the real secret of all teaching which is to be really beneficial is the influence of the personality of the teacher upon the child taught. You remember every one of you, I have no doubt, the influence of your father's reading of the Bible; therefore let us not depreciate the mere reading of the Gospel or simple Bible teaching such as that which you learnt at your mother's knee. If we begin to intervene with saying we must have first of all Catholic truth, and we must then have ecclesiastical standards, and what not, I say we are interfering with this highest kind of teaching for the young in a way which, as those who have most experience will tell you, provides no effective substitute. I, then, say let us hold on to our devout and free teaching of the Bible.
I would in this connection venture to commend to those who are opposed to me the words of the great Anglican poet John Keble, with a slight variation of application which I hope you will allow me to make. Keble said, in words familiar to all here—
"there is a book who runs may read,
Which Heavenly truth imparts,
And all the love its scholars need,
Pure eyes and Christian hearts."
These words were spoken of the book of nature—that book of nature which the British Association are investigating at York to-day—that book with all its complexities and all its infinite secresies and difficulties. If these words could be spoken with truth of the book of nature, I say that they can be said with ten times more obvious truth of the Gospel story as it is taught by every honest man and woman. Again, one of our historians, a very distinguished historian, has written these words, which I commend to those who oppose this Bill on these grounds:—
"When the Bible at the Reformation became an open book, there was laid the foundation stone on which the whole later history of England, civil as well as ecclesiastical, was reared."
I think the historian might have added on which all the finest elements of the character of the English people were
1516
reared—our love of freedom, our love of truth, our sense of personal responsibility, the simple sincere evangelical religion which has done so much to make Englishmen what they are. I say again, let us hold on to this great treasure of our English life, the open Bible in the hands of the teacher well and carefully trained, as in the hands of the mother in her home.
With regard to the Bill itself I desire to say that there are two or three Amendments which I hope to see inserted. One is with reference to the teacher. There is much to be said on both sides as to whether the teachers, now a division of the Civil Service, should not be kept in a neutral position with regard to denominational teaching in public elementary schools; and yet, in our rural single school areas I hold that, for the sake of the children, we ought to allow the teachers, if they desire to do it, and if they are free from all other school obligations, to be at liberty to give the denominational teaching in the Catechism and the Prayer-book as they have in many cases hitherto done.
Then again there is the question of facilities. I desire to see the facilities which are allowed under Clause 2 extended, not only to transferred schools, but to those schools in single school areas which happen by some accident, to be board schools. I see no distinction between the two under the new system, and I think they should be treated in the same way. There is another thing which I desire to see. I desire, like most of your Lordships, to see—though again there are arguments to be brought forward on both sides—religious instruction given day by day within the hours of obligatory attendance. I desire that in the interest of the children, because I am strongly opposed to anything like child labour as an equivalent of child instruction. There is another point which I will not argue now, as we shall have other opportunities, but I am inclined, if public opinion is with us, to go a step further. I would say that in all our public elementary schools Biblical instruction in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Christian faith should be offered to all children. It would be for the parents to

1517
say that they preferred something else, as they can say now, but I would offer it.
I think these are the chief Amendments which I desire, and I hope we shall not go too far with anything which in another place might be looked upon as wrecking Amendments. There is, however, one point in Clause 4 which I think is open to question, and that is whether it would not be reasonable to drop the 5,000 limit, and say wherever there is bona fide another school within reach.
I must apologise for detaining your Lordships so long, but I wish to look at this matter in a purely practical way, and therefore I am going to ask you to consider for a moment what, so far as I myself understand it, will be the result of this Bill in my own diocese. I think that is the way to look at the matter— what will be the effect within the sphere of our own practical operations where we know the circumstances. In this connection I think two things will happen. First of all, our county local authority will appoint the teachers—that is to say they will do so through their Elementary Committee. Most of your Lordships probably sit on such committees. Our county is a fairly representative rural county—there are many such up and down England—and our local authority is a good Conservative authority —I myself am a member of it. The influential members of this committee which would appoint the teachers all over the county—who are they? One is the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a very leading Conservative gentleman in the county, a thoroughly good old-fashioned Conservative and a highly-honourable man. Another is the Chairman of the County Council, a man who has devoted his life to good work in the county, a retired military officer. These two men and all their colleagues will feel in conscience bound—I say this to reassure any of my Nonconformist friends—when appointing teachers, to say, "We have no right to consider anything but the obligatory duties of these teachers." But when they come to appoint teachers who will have to teach the Bible, they will say—at least I should say—to the applicant, "You apply as a volunteer to do this work. It is our duty to remind you that these
1518
children will be committed to you by their parents during the Biblical lesson for the express purpose that they may be taught the Gospel as a Book of Faith, that they may be therein instructed in the natural way in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith and doctrine. If you volunteer to do this, we will trust to your honesty to do it faithfully, devoutly, and reverently." I think the teachers would respond to that.
Even if I do not get these two or three Amendments for which I shall plead, I shall still hold to this Bill, because I learnt in my youth the story of the Sybilline Books, and I know, as a matter of more than probability, that if we reject this Bill we shall get something which we shall dislike much more. Therefore I say that in any case I shall support the Bill. But supposing it comes out as I hope it will, the Church of England schools in my diocese will be in a better position both for their work and maintenance than ever before. The religious teaching will go on as before on the part of the clergy, probably better. I think that all the attention which has been drawn to the matter will probably stir up some of our clergy to be more active than they have been hitherto in this respect. Some of my clergy are most devoted to their schools, but I am sorry to say there are others who prefer that the teaching should be given by the teachers. That I take to be, from the clergyman's point of view, a very grave mistake, but I believe that under this Bill the religious teaching will be as good as before, and that the secular teaching, seeing that the teachers will be better trained and paid, will be better than before, and that for all the future we shall have our school buildings for our denominational purposes, we shall get them repaired and extended from time to time, we shall never have to spend another penny upon them, and we shall be relieved by the present Minister for Education far more effectively than Mr. Balfour relieved us from an intolerable strain.
I only wish to repeat that the fundamental mistake of the opponents of this Bill may be summed up in the phrase mistrust of the local authority and mistrust of the teachers. This mistrust in a

1519
constitutional country is a fundamental misconception of our public duty. Why should we mistrust local authorities in these cases? They are elected by the people immediately concerned, and so long as these people remain a Christian people the local authority will perform their Christian duties. They can be turned out in three years if they do not satisfy the people. I am not afraid of the controversies that will ensue in these places. These controversies are the seeds of new life. Then again, these very local authorities are largely Churchpeople, and they have been brought up and instructed by our bishops and clergy.
We have had instances quoted—they are exceptions, whether they prove the rule or not—such as Huddersfield. I think we have heard almost too much about Huddersfield, but I will refer to it for one moment. I have never been to Huddersfield; I hardly know where it is, except that it is in that—what shall I say?—that volcanic region of the West Biding of Yorkshire. But I happen to know a little about it, because like most of your Lordships I am deeply interested in the question of infant mortality, and this town of Huddersfield has been setting an example in regard to infant mortality which I wish other towns in England would speedily follow. Under a highly enlightened mayor, Mr. Broadbent, a brother of the great physician I believe, directed by a very distinguished officer of health, Dr. Moore, that town has reduced its infant mortality by something like 50 per cent., whereas if you look at statistics, you will find this appalling fact in our English life—which is not altogether irrelevant when we are dealing with a question affecting the children— that out of every 1,000 children born in England, something like from 120 to 200 die in the first twelve months. That I say is an appalling fact in a civilised country, and these men at Huddersfield have set themselves to face it and to cure it, and they are reducing that mortality by their beneficent methods. I have had the satisfaction of reading of the results of their work, and I would like to see their example imitated all over the country. These wise and beneficent men are not irreligious men. You can depend
1520
upon that. There must be some local reasons why they have thought it best to confine the religious instruction in their schools to certain devout religious observances, including hymns and prayers and perhaps the reading of a passage from the Bible. If our children are brought up with daily hymns, and in an atmosphere of daily prayer, they are not being brought up in a pagan life. I say that there must be some local reasons for the step they have taken, and I will simply abstain from a verdict until I have a little more experience on the point.
My last word is, let us trust the local authorities, and let us trust the teachers, for these teachers are well and carefully trained, many of them in Church colleges, and I would venture to say of those who are not trained in Church colleges that many of them are quite as well trained as those who are. Some of your Lordships must be familiar with the colleges of the British and Foreign Schools Society. I know of no better religious atmosphere than the atmosphere of those colleges. Again, we in Hereford are not considered a progressive people, but we have established a county college for the training of teachers. By some accident we were the first to do it under the Act of 1902. The college is full of students under an excellent principal, and they are receiving first class Biblical instruction inside the college, while every denomination outside has opportunities of giving additional denominational instruction to all the students belonging to that denomination, whether it be Church, or Congregational, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or what not. I am glad to think that the various denominations of Hereford are doing their duty in this matter. I do not know a happier instance of the right bringing up of future teachers of the young for the discharge of their duties as teachers. Therefore I think we should do well to remember that principle which Mr. Gladstone used to be fond of impressing upon us, although the advice was not taken on all sides—that we should trust the people; and the persons immediately to be trusted in this case are the responsible local authorities and the responsible teachers.

1521
I would conclude by expressing a hope that whatever Amendments may be passed in this House, there will be no wrecking Amendments. I fear the consequences of such Amendments, not only on our education, but on many other things. I am afraid of what I may call a battle of the giants. Your Lordships are very well aware that in another place the Government possess a giant's strength. This Bill on every page, by its concessions, by its conciliatory paragraphs, and by its exemptions, indicates that the Government have said to themselves that it would be tyrannous to use their strength like a giant. They must have known all the time well enough that it would have been much easier for them to have passed through another place a far more drastic Bill—a Bill which would have been far more distasteful to us. Therefore, I say let us give them due credit. But in this House the case is reversed, for it is the noble Marquess opposite and his legions who possess the giant's strength, and I venture in all earnestness to ask that they will use that moderately, so that we may not have, as I have said, a battle of the giants in this matter. As I look back on the history of our own and other countries, I see that these battles of the giants have produced mainly volcanic wreck and ruin. If I look to the sixteenth century, I see the battle of the Church and the people; in the seventeenth century the battle of the Church and the King; while if I go across the Channel I need no reminder of the French Revolution. I do not like revolutionary forces being nursed or encouraged, but sometimes the most conservative people of all do the most nursing and encouragement. As a Member of this House I fear such a battle, because in all my reading of history I have never yet found that amidst this volcanic wreck and ruin it was the people who were buried in the ruins. I am glad to think that we have as leaders and chief advisers in this House two men of such wide experience and of such conciliatory spirit, and I am grateful also, if I may be allowed to say so, for the equally conciliatory spirit of our two Archbishops. We have heard our Primate—I wish we could also have heard the Archbishop of York, but he is detained by his duties
1522
receiving the British Association at York. I wish this because I venture to say that of all Episcopal utterances that I have heard in connection with this controversy, I think the wisest and most conciliatory have been those of the venerable Archbishop of York. I trust and pray that this conciliatory spirit may prevail through all our deliberations in the autumn, and that the Bill may eventually become law in such a shape as will produce throughout the country a long period of sorely-needed religious peace and educational progress.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I venture to intrude myself for the first time upon the discussion of this subject in your Lordships' House, because there is a point of view which I desire to be allowed more or less to represent, and which has not, I think, at present boon sufficiently represented in these discussions. I listened to the admirable speech of the most rev. Primate, in which he impeached solemnly and seriously the justice of this Bill, and I followed every word of that impeachment with perfect agreement. What I desire to say is totally in harmony with, and supplimentary to, all that has been said by him and by others who hane spoken from these benches and in other parts of the House. I listened also to the admirable suggestions made by the most rev. Primate for the mitigating of the injustice of this Bill. I listened also to the other speakers from these Benches, including my right rev. brother who has just sat down, and with the Amendments which they suggested for the mitigating of the injustice of this Bill I also find myself in the profoundest agreement. In spite of the tone which pervaded a considerable part of the speech of the last speaker, when he came to mention the Amendments which he desired to see, I was extremely glad to learn what those Amendments were which are not to be considered "wrecking" Amendments.
Those Amendments were that there should be liberty for the State teacher to teach denominational religion; that facilities should be extended to all schools in single school areas; that all religious teaching should be within compulsory school hours; that there

1523
should be an extension of the special facilities under Clause 4; and that there should be something approaching a guarantee that those who give the religious teaching should be persons qualified to give it. I am very glad to learn that these are not to be considered "wrecking" Amendments.
I am not convinced that the country itself desires the abolition of the present dual system of schools. Certainly in the district from which I come, and in those districts with which I am best acquainted in England, there is even a passionate desire, to retain the dual system. But it is indeed easily imagined that there should be a general demand in the country for the abolition of the dual system and the substitution of a single system of State schools. There is a strong democratic movement in the country, and we all of us know that it is thoroughly in agreement with that democratic spirit that such a demand should be made. What I wish to say is this. Supposing a Government should desire to give expression to those great principles about which we have heard so much— that there should be substituted for the present dual system of schools a single school system, and that the State should cease in any way to inquire into or interfere with the religious opinions of those who are to be civil servants in this, matter of giving State instruction in elementary schools—supposing a Government were to introduce such a measure, there are many of us Churchmen who believe that they could not do a wiser thing, and there are a much larger number who believe that whether or not it is better, it is, under modern conditions, the only system to which we can reasonably expect to come and there are very many who are perfectly ready to accept it when it comes. It is on behalf of those that I desire to say a word.
We oppose this Bill not because it desires to give expression to those two great principles — the principle of the single system of State schools and the principle that the State shall not make any inquisition into the religious opinions of the teachers—but because
1524
we are convinced that this Bill in no way carries out those intentions. If those intentions are to be carried out, you must approach the matter by an altogether different road from that which this Bill has adopted. What I mean is this. This Bill certainly does not secure either of those great principles. As to the establishment of a single school system, which I believe to be the great principle of Clause 1, it has been constantly pointed out that this Bill substitutes for our present system the establishment of a fourfold system of schools. There are the schools where undenominational religious teaching can be given; there are the schools with ordinary facilities; there are the schools with special facilities; and there are the schools which fall back on receiving State aid without rate aid, or the system which prevailed before 1902. As far as I can understand, all the Amendments which are likely to be introduced in your Lordships' House will go to fix this multiplicity of schools, and by no means to put the Bill into a shape which will secure the expression of that principle of the one system which we have been told this Bill was to establish.
As regards the non-interference of the State with the religious opinions of the teachers, we have been told from the Government Benches that where you have schools under Clause 4, where only denominational teaching is to be given, the teachers of the particular denomination will doubtless gravitate towards those schools. We have been told also on many hands that where undenominational teaching is to be given, inquiry will be made of the teachers who have been appointed as to whether they are properly qualified to give that religious instruction. It is perfectly evident that so long as you entrust the giving of religious instruction to authorities representing the State, so long it will be absolutely necessary that the State should continue to make inquisition into the opinions of those who are to give that religious instruction. The debate has made it perfectly evident that that will be so. What I feel sure of is this. I do not say that the Government ought to desire the abolition of the present system, and the substitution

1525
of the single school system; what I do say is that if the Government, or any Government, does desire to inaugurate that great change, then the best way by which they can do it is by totally separating the sphere of the State and the sphere of religious bodies in education, by confining the functions of the State wholly and simply to the giving of secular instruction and throwing the giving of the religious instruction upon the religious bodies.
There are three systems by which that great principle could be carried out. You could have secularism, by which there should be nothing but secular instruction given in the State schools. For my own part, I am profoundly thankful that the sense, of the country repudiates such an idea. Secondly, you could have a system which is often referred to as the German system, and which is closely akin, as I understand, to the Scottish system. I was amazed to hear the noble Lord who instanced the Scottish system in justification, as I understood him, of the proposals of the Government. I should like to hear the noble Lord Balfour of Burleigh give a plain exposition to this House of what the Scottish system Well, you could have the Scottish or German system, though I do not myself believe that it is practicable in England at the present time for the State directly to undertake the giving of and paying for denominational instruction.
But if you set those two systems aside, you are left with the alternative which has been identified with the name of Mr. Chamberlain. For my part, I believe that if the Government desire really to carry out those two principles which I have repeatedly alluded to, and of which we have heard so much, there is only one way in which they can do it, and that is by acting on the principles advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. I have distinguished the system of Mr. Chamberlain from the secularist system because it is markedly distinguished from that system; it is a scheme under which religious instruction is to be given in each particular locality on the authority not of the State but of the religious bodies, who
1526
are the properly qualified persons, and who have a mandate to give such religious instruction.
I want to say with all the emphasis of which I am capable that this will not in any way deprive the State of its religious character. Our belief in the religious character of the State depends, I suppose, on the writings of St. Paul and others. According to that great thinker, St. Paul, the maintenance of the principles of civil and social righteousness and order is in itself the great religious function of the State—not the giving of religious teaching, which belongs not to the State but to the Church. It is not a secular system, it is not an irreligious system; nothing of the kind. The State has a mandate to give the secular instruction and not to provide, or determine the character of, religious instruction; but the State nevertheless recognises the value of religious instruction as a necessity for the life of the citizen, and so it makes provision that there shall be a period within compulsory school hours when religious instruction is to be given; it gives liberty to the ordinary teachers to give that religious instruction if they wish, but throws the responsibility for providing and paying for the religious instruction upon the denominations chosen by the parents to give that instruction to their children. Of course the denominations might each act independently; on the other hand they might all act in combination, and I have no doubt at all that in some districts all the various religious bodies would combine. Such voluntary combinations differ in toto from any action of the State compulsorily saying that all the religious denominations are to agree in such and such a teaching. I have no doubt that almost everywhere all the various bodies of Nonconformists would combine for similar religious teaching.
The determining authority as to the religious teaching to be given should be the wishes of the parents. We have been told in the course of these debates that the parents constituted a lay figure, which was used as long as it was wanted, and was then wheeled into the background. If there is anything fundamental in my whole being—anything which I am totally incapable of "wheeling away"

1527
when I have used it—it is this belief in the authority of the parents to determine the religious instruction of their children. I think it would be a very curious experiment what the determination of the majority of English parents would be, but I am quite sure that if it should turn out that only a small minority of the parents wished to have their children educated in the principles of the Church to which I belong, I should none the less uphold that principle, because I would far rather that the parents should exercise their choice even though they exercised it in a manner and in a sense different from that which I should wish. I am quite sure that there is in the mind of the great mass of those who urge this argument no special belief in the probability that the majority of parents will choose in such and such a way. Our statements are based upon what we believe to be the fundamental principles, and the Tightness, of the case. I am sure nothing would be better for the religious life of the country than that the people should have to say what kind of religious principles they would prefer their children to be brought up in.
It is very often said that the system is impracticable. I do not for one instant believe that anything at all approaching a sufficient amount of attention has been given to this system to justify anyone in describing it as impracticable. It is very often glibly said that it has been tried in Birmingham, and that it failed there. It is only in a very imperfect and partial sense that it has been tried in Birmingham. It is quite true that there has been a certain application of this principle of facilities in the council schools in Birmingham. I have been at pains to inquire from some of the very best of the council school teachers in Birmingham as to what they thought of the system. I have here a sheaf of their opinions, and though no doubt it has been a failure in certain cases, and though no doubt the Nonconformists have not taken it up, or, where they did take it up, have abandoned it, yet I have the strongest opinions from some of the best of our council school teachers in Birmingham that the teaching in question has been of the
1528
greatest possible assistance. I will read only one specimen—
"In my opinion it has had a good effect on the daily life of the school; it helps discipline. I cannot undertake to speak for teachers generally, but as regards my own teachers I can say they always welcomed it. This has been shown by the way in which they have given up their time and shown themselves willing to attend and help. Again, the children welcome the entrance of teachers who are not in any way connected with the official life of the school. This too has been constantly shown by the wonderful attendance of the boys, only three boys being prevented from attending, and that by the action of their parents, and not by their own will. A great many lads would never have got any religions teaching at all were it not for this voluntary teaching."
I have got quite a sheaf of opinions, which perhaps others would like to look at.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: That is out of school hours?
*THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: No, in school hours. But even if it was out of school hours, it would only emphasise my point—namely, that it would be much more effective in school hours. I feel quite sure that we have no kind of experience which would justify us in saying that this system is impracticable. I believe that if we were to put our backs into it—if I may use the expression—with anything like the seriousness with which we have put our backs into the old system, it could be made quite as successful, while it would be free from all the complications which attach to any other attempted solution of the religious difficulty. I have also heard it remarked that one of the most strenuous supporters of the present principle of voluntary schools— the Bishop of Manchester—has strongly denounced this system. On the contrary, I have the Bishop of Manchester's authority to say that, though he will do his very best to maintain the present system, yet, if the present system of dual schools is to be abandoned, he would greatly prefer the Chamberlain plan—if I may so describe it—to such a system, for example, as is advocated or proposed by the Government Bill. For my own part I believe that if any Government really proposes to put forth these two great principles of which we have heard so

1529
much as being the basis of the present Government Bill—I am not now dealing with the question whether that proposal would be wise or not, but I feel quite sure that if these two great principles are to be put in force, and we are not to adopt a purely secular system, the platform of Mr. Chamberlain is the only one on which we can stand. I am quite sure on the other hand that the method by which the present Government has approached the solution of this question is one which has no chance of leading to any satisfactory settlement, and is open to the greatest variety of profoundest objections.
First of all, this undenominational method by which the State is to select the particular kind of religious teaching and establish it in all our schools—this preferential method with regard to one particular kind of religious teaching—is, if I at all understand the tendencies of our modern life—thoroughly opposed to the democratic feeling of our age, and thoroughly opposed to everything that has been identified with Liberal principles ever since I can remember what they are and what they have been supposed to be. It astonishes me that the Liberal Party should propose this, which I am quite sure is a fresh measure of religious establishment in the schools. It so happens that I have a great many friends of more or less advanced Radical, Liberal or Socialistic opinions, and I know hardly any of them who have not a thoroughly bad conscience in regard to this Bill. They justify it solely by some supposed political necessity, but I know hardly one of them who, in private conversation, does not exhibit a thoroughly bad conscience in regard to the measure.
It is amazing how far we have left behind the old principles of establishment. According to the old ideas of the Established Church, there was no doubt at all what was the duty of the State with regard to religious instruction. It would hand over the children to the instruction of the State Church. It might allow a conscience clause for the withdrawal of those who had scruples, but according to the old principles of establishment there was no doubt at all as to the duty of the State. I cannot imagine a doubt,
1530
according to any of the ancient principles of establishment, such as are connected, for instance, with the Reformation in England, that it would have been the duty of the State to hand over the children to the instruction of the State Church. It is astonishing how far we have left all that behind. Nobody, as far as I know, at the present time in any way advocates that sort of preferential dealing with the religious principles of the Established Church. But when once you have abandoned that plan, the only other plan is that of saying that the State shall be absolutely impartial between the religious opinions of the different members of the nation, and I am sure that it is an amazing anomaly, which cannot hope to hold ground, for a Liberal Government to introduce a new sort of establishment— to take a particular kind of religious teaching and establish that as the authorised national system in all schools. That is so contrary to everything that we understand by the word "Liberal" That when it is proposed by a Liberal Government I feel sure there must be so much of bad conscience in those who are proposing it as to give the greatest possible courage to the opponents of the measure to attack the Bill, feeling that there will be traitors within the camp.
What I care about chiefly is the character of the religious teaching to be given to the children, and while I am sure that the principle advocated in this Bill is contrary to Liberalism, I also oppose the proposal to establish undenominational religious teaching, because I am sure it is the establishment of the kind of religious teaching which is weakest and worst. It is for the interest of the State that the religion to be taught to the children should be the best. In no branch of human life or human knowledge do you get at the best, or at anything worth having, by the process of eliminating all differences. By that process you get only what is weakest, and washiest, and least capable of strengthening and establishing the character or enlightening the mind.
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said that he could not imagine why we should require to teach dogmatically, considering that the persons

1531
whom we were to teach were quite young children, and not old scholars, or professors, or learned academicians. I think that is the exact opposite of the truth. I have just had the pleasure of holding a very interesting conference of theologians at my house, where we discussed theological subjects. It was a thoroughly undenominational conference; we all knew our own opinions. I am proposing in a little while to go and lecture on behalf of an undenominational faculty in theology at one of the new Universities. It appears to me that what the noble Lord stated is exactly the opposite of the real truth. When you have to do with competent scholars, you have to do with people of an age to know their own opinions, and you can argue with them, and present questions in a controversial manner, or teach them the grounds of what they believe—or they can argue the grounds of what they believe among themselves. But in the case of children, because they are young you must teach them dogmatically. Teaching dogmatically means teaching simply. We do not want to teach something outside the Bible; we want to teach the Bible in the only way in which you can make that teaching emphatic. I should not so much mind if we were allowed to teach nothing but the Bible, so long as you could teach it by the standards which every book of the New Testament itself postulates as being already in the minds of those for whom those books were written; for there is no single book of the Bible which was not written for those and to those who had already received that sort of rudimentary religious instruction which is contained in our Catechism and the Apostles' Creed. We only want to teach the Bible in the way in which it can be used effectively—in the way in which historically it has grown.
What I am afraid of in this connection is not a Mephistophelian teacher who w ill diabolically teach the children positive error; what I am afraid of is something which I know belongs to the character of the ordinary Englishman, and speaking to Englishmen, I ask whether what I am now saying is not true. If an ordinary Englishman knows, as multitudes do know, that his religious opinions
1532
are singularly unfixed, what does he do? He studiously avoids putting into any definite shape what they are. If you ask him to teach religion—and it has happened in countless classes of our public schools—he teaches the distance from Jerusalem to Jericho, the meaning of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and avoids teaching everything that constitutes the real essence of the Christian religion as it is described and summarised in, for example, the Apostles' Creed. Someone just now read the statement, expressed in a rather controversial manner, that if you were to teach a child the Book of Genesis you must first of all teach him the principles of the Catholic religion. I should have thought that that was an admirable example of what I have been trying to express. If I am to take the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, and teach it to children as it stands without guide or standard, I should teach the child that this world was constructed in six days; that it was the centre of the solar system; and I should go on to teach him all manner of things covered by chapters of the Old Testament which are directly contrary to his fundamental moral sense. I know nothing more certain than that if I am to give children of the present day any kind of idea of the meaning of the Old Testament, I must not teach the Bible and the Bible only, but I must teach the Bible under the guidance of that belief in the character and the nature of God which is given by any of the fundamental standards of the Christian Church. If there is to be any real teaching of religion it must be by the standards of definite religious societies which are responsible for handing on religious truth.
What I feel sure of in regard to this undenominational teaching is not that there will be many teachers who will teach fundamental error, but that the teaching will become weaker and weaker, washier and washier. I do not need to appeal to Huddersfield, though I believe that in the controversy between the most rev. Primate and the representative of the Government the most rev. Primate was right—that though the elementary schools might bargain for undenominational teaching when those

1533
schools were handed over, yet they would have no subsequent control over the character of the Cowper-Temple teaching, and that the Cowper-Temple teaching in those schools would become what the Cowper-Temple teaching is in the other schools of Huddersfield.
I do not want to talk about Huddersfield, however, but about Birmingham. There is another question about the council schools in Birmingham; there is nothing that can be called positive religious instruction given at all. There is hardly any definite religious instruction given. There is Bible reading, the learning of texts and hymns, but there is hardly anything that can be called definite Bible teaching. If you remove the standards supplied by the denominational schools, which have incalculably elevated undenominational teaching, if you greatly lessen the number of those who have been trained in denominational colleges, and take the average Englishman, trained scientifically in all the other branches of knowledge that he has to teach, but with merely the religious opinions of the average Englishman, the religious teaching that, will be given will be such as will gain no real hold upon the character, nor give any real strength to the life of the child so taught.
It is not because we object to the application of these two great principles—that there should be only one class of school under the direct control of the State, and that the State should not interfere with the religious convictions, or inquire into the religious opinions of the teachers—it is not because we object to the application of those two principles that we oppose the present Government Bill, but because we are sure that the Bill does not secure the application of those principles, but that, professing to secure them, it fails altogether in its object; and still more because we are sure that the road by which it attempts to secure those objects is a road which leads to disaster. The road of establishing undenominationalism leads to disaster—firstly, because it is but a very short step from secularism—it affords no solid or permanent kind of religious instruction; secondly, because it is
1534
contrary to any established and fundamental Liberal or democratic principles that the State should select, and give a preference to, one particular kind of religious teaching; thirdly, because it violates the great principle that it is the function of the Church, or of the religious bodies, and not of the State, to teach religion; and lastly because, so far from leading to a settlement, it has become only too apparent that if this Bill passes into law in anything like its present form it will lead to the profoundest stirring of religious controversy in municipal and political matters. Although I own to being something of a pessimist, I am astonished at the amount and depth of feeling excited in my own neighbourhood in regard to this Bill. I have been astonished at the depth, and the widespread character, of the determination to have none of it. It appears to me that there is no hope more fallacious, and more certain to be disappointed, than the idea that this Bill will lead to anything like a lasting religious settlement.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, largely because I have long disliked going into the discussion of any theological question if I can possibly avoid it; and I shall not touch on any theological matters now, and still less upon those subjects which have been freely discussed in this debate with great reverence, I admit, even with solemnity, but which, none the less, seem to me to be somewhat incongruous with the character of a deliberative Assembly. The right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, has made one of the most interesting speeches I have ever heard—equal in interest, and that is a very high compliment, to the speech of the most rev; Primate—but I think he would be the first to acknowledge that it exploded nearly all the arguments used during the whole course of the debate against the Bill.
The right rev. Prelate thinks that His Majesty's Government have a bad conscience in this matter. I want to offer my apologia. I wish my conscience had always been as clear as it is in regard to this Bill. The noble Earl in the beginning of the debate to-day asked why this Bill

1535
was introduced. I must answer that question. The Act of 1870 attempted to solve the difficulty created by the diversity of religious views and creeds in this country and the necessity of some common public education; and it solved it by leaving denominational schools to stand, provided they could find some support out of their own means in order to maintain them in their isolation. They did last for a considerable time, and I agree with the most rev. Primate in thinking that it is not fair to reproach the Church of England with the fact that they were unable to continue their existence. It was not because the voluntary funds fell off; it was because the duties of more detailed and sanitary education grew so much that it was impossible for private resources to meet the strain. I think that is true, and it is rather shabby to attack the Church on the ground that voluntary subscriptions did not suffice. But that Act could not be, worked in a satisfactory manner, and it undoubtedly fell to pieces.
Then came the Act of 1902; and here I must incidentally say it is not quite fair, with the majority you have in this House, to attack us because we used what you call the "gag." Did not you use the "gag"In 1902? With all respect to noble Lords, I do not think that is quite fair; nor is it quite fair to say that we have brought in this Bill with the subtle and dark design of upsetting religion. I venture to think it is better to discuss the Bill in a different temper. Well, my Lords, the Act of 1902 adopted a different method. It attempted to bring in the local authorities and to give some sort of local control in return for assistance from the rates. But there was no real control, and that Act failed. Everyone knows it was a failure. The most rev. Primate himself said that it was legitimately to be expected that we should bring in a Bill to amend that Act. Hence the necessity for this Bill.
Then what Bill were we to bring in? On what lines were we to proceed? In the first place, there were the Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholics form a Church of a precise and inexorable creed, and every man who does not follow it implicitly is condemned. They insist on having a Catholic atmosphere in
1536
which their children can be brought up. No one who heard the speech of the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk could have failed to be profoundly impressed by it, and it only expressed the traditional view of Roman Catholics, and showed that they will always insist on having a separate atmosphere.
Then there is the Church of England. I sympathise still more with the view of the Churchmen. But there are High Churchmen and Low Churchmen, and some are broad, and again there are a great number, we all know perfectly well, in the Church of England whose religion corresponds generally to the Cowper-Temple religion. I do not think the Church of England does ask resolutely for an exclusive Church of England atmosphere, in so strict a sense as the Roman Catholics ask for theirs; but they do ask for the maintenance of their Church schools, and their arguments are founded to a large extent on the past history of the Church of England. Who knows what will please one section and what will please another? I do not think that is a fair subject for reproach. On the contrary, I think it is one of the best characteristics of the Church of England that it does extend so far. Well, my Lords, that is the position of the Church of England.
Then there are the Nonconformists. Several noble Lords have expressed their deep regret that the Nonconformists are not represented in this House. I share that regret. It would be better for the House and better for the Nonconformists themselves; but they cannot be heard here, and some of your Lordships, if you confine yourselves to the intellectual atmosphere of this House, may forget that tremendous force—for it is a tremendous force—of able and sincere men with great courage. The question between the Church and the Nonconformists is the same question in a different form that arose in the time of Cromwell and Laud. The Nonconformists will not accept the atmosphere of the Church of Rome, nor will they accept the atmosphere of every section in the Church of England. They are particularly jealous of what they call dogmatic teaching, especially in a particular form.

1537
These, then, are the difficulties which surround the subject, and we had to consider what had to be done. It is very easy to say that you ought to give denominational facilities, or, as Lord Salisbury particularly put it, that you ought to allow the parent the right to have his children brought up in the creed he holds. Does the noble Marquess mean every parent, or why should there be a selection? Why should not the poorest of creeds be entitled to the same privileges as that which has the most numerous adherents?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear !
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is impossible to carry out such a system. This doctrine of concurrent endowment is a thing impracticable in itself. The people of this country would not stand it; they could not stand it. It would not be fair to ask them to consent to such a system and to the number of schools that would be required. Therefore, it was impossible for the Government to take the system of concurrent endowment. Unless any noble Lord would be prepared, if a Member of the Government, to make such a system his object, he ought not to blame the Government. He would not be prepared to do it, and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition would not do it if he came into power to-morrow.
What the Government did was to attempt to give power to the local authority. The local authorities have power in Scotland. I cannot enter into particulars of the Scottish system, but the religious education in Scotland is prescribed by the local authority, the school board. During the thirty-four years since that system began there has been no substantial complaint, either of partiality, neglect, or indifference towards religion on the part of the school boards of Scotland. The Bill of 1902, which a great many of your Lordships supported, also contained the principle of trusting the local authority, as the light rev. Prelate called it. We are trusting the local authority, I fully admit in a somewhat different sense, but in substantially the same sense as the local authority, the school board, is trusted in Scotland.
1538
The next thing we did was to limit the character of the religious teaching that could be given by the local authority to the Cowper-Temple religion. That is nothing new. The Cowper-Temple religion has been with acceptance observed in England ever since 1870. It was accepted, and the majority of English children are now taught the Cowper-Temple religion. Why are we doing anything very wrong in that? I do not think we have deserved all the censures we have received for doing that. The only other thing we did was to extend facilities to denominational schools under Clauses 3, 4, and 5, with a sincere desire to enable those who wished for denominational education to have that education so far as it was compatible with the possibilities and exigencies of the educational situation in which we are placed. Now that is the source of further complaints. It is said that we have not gone far enough in giving facilities. I am not sure that that is not really, after all, the gravamen and substance of the accusation brought against us. I have given you an outline of what we intended and what we tried to do, and here we are culprits making our apologia for having endeavoured to act in that way.
What remains? are your Lordships blind—I do not use the expression with any disrespect—to the only alternative? The most rev. Primate congratulated himself and the House when he made his speech upon the fact that secularism was rejected in the present House of Commons by a majority of between four and five hundred on one side and sixty odd on the other. But those sixty odd were practically mutineers. If the House of Commons had been left to decide for itself I do not know what the decision would have been; but I am quite certain that there were scores and scores of members who stayed away, and there were others who yielded reluctantly to the strong and earnest attempt of the Government to induce them to support it in order to give a last chance to a religious system of education connected with the State.
Your Lordships have heard what the right rev. Prelate the Bishon of Birmingham said. The right rev. Prelate represents a great and growing force in the Church of England, and he said that the

1539
State had nothing whatever to do with the teaching of religion. I know he said more but that was his first proposition. The teaching of religion is the business of the Church, but the Church wanted facilities. What facilities? The facilities it got at Birmingham. What facilities does it get at Birmingham? Facilities, I believe, out of school hours. This education is given out of school hours, and by a voluntary system. It is notorious that in any school in this country, which is, after all, a free country, you can give by a voluntary system out of school hours any kind of religious education you like.
This is undiluted secularism. I believe it is accompanied by the expectation, if you please the certainty, that the Church will take up the burden which has been cast down by the State and do the work, if you like, more effectively; but it is in itself pure secularism and nothing else. There are all over the country people, I do assure your Lordships, who are coming gradually and reluctantly to the same view. It is not the view I hold myself. If possible, I should very much like to see some other method than secularism, but there are others who take a different view, and more and more people are beginning to take that view. They are beginning to say to themselves: "We have been lashed round the whole circle of these pitiful expedients and we are tired of them. We will no longer lie content to be constantly putting forward propositions in the hope that we shall find common ground among Christian denominations and to be constantly met by too successful resistance. We will attempt that course no more; we will give you secularism." Although your Lordships may disapprove of this view and believe you will be able to stem the tide if the tide rises, yet no one is better aware than your Lordships that this House has always bowed to public opinion when expressed.
You will find public opinion—angry, tumultuous, irresistible—in favour of secularism if you refuse, I will not for a moment say this Bill as it stands—I mean nothing of the kind, nor is there anything minatory in my language or thoughts—but if you refuse to consider a well-meant and honest attempt to find
1540
some middle course such as we have endeavoured to put before your Lordships. That is my belief. I may be altogether wrong; your Lordships will form your own judgment; but I am glad to think that between now and October there will be time for a little cool reflection. I do not know why it is that up to now the attempt to come to some concordat has failed in this country. This I am sure of, that the present is a critical occasion—I do not mean in a constitutional, but in an educational, sense—and all those who wish, well to the cause of education and of the religious education of the young would do well to reflect between now and October.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, we are asked to accept a Bill which will give a far wider extension to that series of prohibitions known as the Cowper-Temple Clause. We are asked to assent to a Bill which will remove many of the safeguards for the thoroughness and reality of religious teaching. And when we look at that prospect with apprehension those who support the Bill try to assure us by saying. "Look at the excellent religious work which has been done under the conditions of the Cowper-Temple Clause in board schools in the past." We have had quoted to us words in another place about —
" Thirty-six years of happy experience of Cowper-Temple teaching,"
and also words used by the most rev. Primate with regard to the teaching that has been given in some board schools, and we are invited to be reassured with regard to the future by past experience.
It is always an ungracious thing to interfere with the cheerful and healthy exercise of optimism, but we are bound to remember that the operation of the Cowper-Temple Clause will be in the future under different conditions from those which have prevailed in the past. The conditions will be different in many ways if this Bill in anything like its present form becomes law. The point to which I wish to draw attention is the difference which is going on, and will go on still more, in the training of the teacher. The noble Lord on my right, Lord Stanley of Alderley, paid a just tribute to the services rendered by the teachers in elementary schools. He spoke of them

1541
as an honourable, an earnest, and a thoughtful body of men and women who cared for this teaching. I wish to express my sense of the debt which we owe in this matter to the teachers in elementary schools. I think that all classes are deeply indebted to them for the temper, the devotion, and the zeal with which they have carried out their work.
But it is increasingly likely that in the future access to the teaching profession will dispense altogether with the requirement of residential training, and with that influence which, whatever we may think or say about an ecclesiastical atmosphere, is necessary for those who are to give religious instruction. Residential training goes far to give the teacher some of the advantages of the public school. In the residential training college the lad will learn, not only to work well, but to play well; he will learn something of the real skill of discipline, and how the best discipline is often maintained where the sanction for it cannot be invoked or enforced; he will learn, above all, the meaning of esprit de corps. Those are ways in which our teachers in the past have been to a great extent trained, with not only definite religious training, but with the influences of a residential college around them. If these advantages are likely in the future to be to a considerable extent withdrawn or foregone, and if you have coming into the teaching profession a large number of men and women not so trained, it cannot be said that the conditions under which Cowper-Temple teaching will be given are identical or near to the conditions under which it has been given in the past. That is one point which I wish to leave with your Lordships, because I think we are all in danger of thinking too confidently that what has prevailed, in many cases happily in the past can be relied on in the future under widely different conditions.
I have only one word more to say. We shall be going away very soon for, I hope, a period of rest, and I imagine that noble Lords will not be sorry to be for a while not thinking of the Education Bill. But when they have had a reasonable respite from all considerations
1542
of it, there are one or two ways in which they may gain what will be helpful when we meet again in the autumn. I hope that your Lordships, before entering on the strenuous work of amendment, will try to find out how the Bill is regarded in the country. I cannot speak with experience of the signs of temper and tone in this House, but I am very much mistaken if there has not been a great accruing of purpose and power in the resolve to amend the Bill as the debate has gone on. I believe that will be re-enforced by a great body of feeling throughout the country, and that this House has an opportunity now of finding itself supported by multitudes who have been accustomed to look askance at it. We heard from an unexpected quarter in another place an expression of thankfulness that there is a House of Lords, and I believe that feeling is very widespread at the present moment throughout the country
*LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I think that his Majesty's Government may congratulate themselves on at least two features of this long debate. One is that, although the Bill has been subjected to the severest criticism, there has not been through the whole course of the debate any suggestion that it should be rejected on its Second Reading. The other is that of the two principles of the Bill one has been accepted without objection and has received the more than tacit support of many noble Lords on the opposite Benches —the principle that public control must follow the gift of public funds.
We are told by His Majesty's Government that two principles guide them in this Bill. The first is the establishment of public control. That, apparently, is on all hands conceded. The other is the abolition of tests. I believe it to be accepted by the whole House that you are not to impose a religious test for appointment to a civil office, but a test in the sense of that imposed on head teachers under the Act of 1902 is a test which always must exist if you are to have efficient teachers. I beg your Lordships to notice that His Majesty's Government are in fact (though in an obscure and indirect form) retaining the only test which the Act of 1902

1543
imposed. Under the Act of that year every head teacher in a voluntary school was necessarily a teacher of religion, as much so as the Archbishop of Canterbury and that being so it was necessary to ascertain whether he was qualified for the work he undertook. In that sense what is denounced as a test was perfectly legitimate, and it will be practically still continued under this Bill. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to make a great distinction between a test precedent to appointment and a test subsequent to appointment. A test precedent to appointment, he said, you must not impose. You must appoint your teacher without a test, but when he is appointed you may if he is willing to teach religion apply one in order to ascertain whether he is qualified to teach it. That is quite a sufficient test for me, and probably for most other noble Lords.
There are provisions in the Bill with which I think we may be well satisfied and grateful for—the provisions for securing the health and recreation of the children. But there my support of the Bill must cease. When we come to those of its provisions which relate to religious teaching, and which, after all, constitute by far the greater part of the enacting clauses, there I feel that His Majesty's Government have gone entirely astray.
In point of clearness of expression and fairness of statement the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council in introducing this Bill left nothing to be desired, but I am not sure that he was quite so happy when answering by anticipation objections which he thought would be made to the Bill. Some of those answers I confess I thought sounded somewhat hollow. The noble Earl is a man of ability; he is not a man who takes a bad argument for a good one; and the same acuteness which enables him to make the best of the case he brings before your Lordships must at the same time show him clearly what the weak points of that case are. I was therefore not at all surprised to hear the comparatively hesitating manner, the lowered voice, and the almost apologetic tone in which the noble Earl attempted
1544
to defend the provisions of the clause requiring a majority of four-fifths for the establishment of exceptional facilities for religious teaching. He said that after all a limit must be made, and what did it signify what the particular limit was. He went on to give what he called a similar instance. He referred to the limit at which exemption from income-tax was fixed as being equally arbitrary. But, my Lords, there is the most essential difference between the two. The limit with regard to the exemption from income-tax is a limit imposed — by whom?—by the majority of the elected representatives of the people. But what is this four-fifths provision? It is really a provision that a minority of a little over one-fifth shall overrule the wishes of perhaps little less than four-fifths of the community.
I have no particularly enthusiastic feeling in favour of a mere numerical majority. I think that is one of the fetishes of the day. That the folly of an hundred fools is wiser than the wisdom of ninety-nine wise men is a proposition which does not greatly commend itself to me. Two hundred years hence it is very probable that our descendants will look upon the wisdom of their ancestors much as we look upon the so-called wisdom of our ancestors, and shibboleths which have great vogue at this time may very possibly be relegated to the same limbo as many more ancient doctrines. But in the meantime the cult of the bare majority holds sway everywhere, and must be acknowledged. I confess that it does seem strange to me that those who are its devoutest worshippers should in this Bill enable a minority of a little over one-fifth to over-rule the wishes of a little under four-fifths of the same community.
I find what seems to be an almost impenetrable blindness on the part of many as to the reasons which induce a large number of your Lordships and other people to object to what is called undenominational teaching. Four years ago it was called undogmatic, but its advocates seem to have discovered that dogma is inseparable from any religious teaching. The nature of the objections to that form of teaching have really not been fully stated. It is because

1545
we know not what undenominational religion means, or may be made to mean, that we object to it. What do its advocates say that it teaches? "the fundamental doctrines of religion," says Dr. Clifford; "of Christianity," says Canon Hensley Henson; "of Trinitarian Christianity," says the Bishop of Carlisle. Well, which is it to be? If indeed you take Trinitarian Christianity it is, I think, then possible to establish something like a combined system of education. I hold in my hand a pamphlet describing what is to my mind almost the only successful effort of its kind. It was drawn up by a Roman Catholic Bishop, an Anglican Bishop, and a Presbyterian chaplain for the guidance of the Martiniére college in Calcutta. It is thoroughly undenominational, but it is dogmatic to the backbone. I believe it would not be beyond the skill of man on that common ground to devise a scheme which might work well and meet all requirements. But that would not satisfy the advocates of the Bill.
The only positive injunction laid down in this Bill is the prohibitive one that distinctive formularies are not to be taught, but there is no limit on the other side, and the temptation always will be to make the field as wide as possible. Logically it ought to be wide enough to comprehend the Jew and the Agnostic, for it is just as great a grievance that they should be compelled to pay for religious teaching they disapprove as that Wesleyans or Baptists should be so. But practically the religions teaching will be Christian, but undenominational, or as it used to be called a year or two ago, undogmatic. What kind of Christianity is this to be? The Unitarians are a small sect, but a powerful one. There will be hesitation on the part of local authorities to offend the Unitarians, and yet if the teaching be such as is acceptable to the Unitarians it will be regarded by a majority of Nonconformists as well as by Churchmen to be no true teaching of Christianity at all. I apprehend that in most schools when this anti-denominational system becomes the law of the land, if it ever does, you will find a gradual slackening of Christian teaching until it fades out altogether. And now
1546
what is meant by fundamental religion? Something making foundation. There are two different foundations. Most of those who advocate undenominational teaching consider it should consist of a set of maxims which are consistent with Christianity, but not necessarily Christian. In the opinion of an equally large number of persons, probably a larger number, their teaching is not Christian at all, but more nearly approaching to Confucianism. They hold, with St. Paul, that other foundation can no man lay than that is laid. The foundation they look to is that of the personality of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the personal relation which exists between Him and every Christian soul. Now, those two foundations are absolutely distinct. You may build a fair edifice on the foundation of moral precepts and philosophic doctrines, and you may tell the children who are educated under it that all they have to do is to listen to those doctrines and to guide themselves by them; but there is all the difference in the world between such a foundation and that other foundation of which I have spoken, a difference that is radical and irreconcilable.
Between those two systems there is a great gulf fixed which cannot be bridged or passed over, and that is the reason why so many earnest men absolutely decline to have any part in what is called un denominational education. That was the one point to which I wished to call you Lordships' attention. Before sitting down however, I should like to make a remark which I think is pregnant with meaning, a meaning which is abhorrent to me, but I am not one of those who refuse to see facts because I do not like them. So far as I am aware, in all the discussions and debates which have taken place on this subject in Parliament and out of doors we have not heard anything that would lead us to infer that there was such an institution still existing as a National Established Church. On all hands it has been spoken of as though on an equality with other sects. This seems to me to involve the recognition of a fact, if it be a fact, of enormous significance.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships'

1547
attention for a few minutes for a very simple and direct purpose. I wish to express my strong impression, from such observations as during this summer I have been able to make, that if one may use the word "mandate" there does exist in this country something like a mandate, and I venture to think from the majority of the English people, to the House of Lords to consider the Government's Education Bill with considerateness, temper, and fairness, but with firmness and without undue fear. I do not say this lightly or forgetful of the responsibilities and anxieties of the hour. We none of us shall be forgetful of those considerations after the speech, so admirable in manner and so weighty in thought, from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
It is a bad thing for a man whose calling in life is to be a pastor to have to take any part in a campaign which has political elements in it. It does not make such a man more ready or able to do his work to have to live in the somewhat dreary conditions of a chronic crisis of a semi-political kind. Throughout my life I have had the happiest possible relations with Nonconformist Christians, and I have derived the greatest spiritual benefit from the instructions and writings of Nonconformist saints. My hope has been for years that there might be an approximation on the deepest grounds between them and us of the Church of England. I rejoice whenever we can meet on large and fruitful common ground, which includes among other things allegiance to that Book, which, like its supreme and ultimate Author, is able to unveil its inmost secret, not necessarily to the elaborately instructed, but to the single-hearted soul. These considerations make it to me infinitely unwelcome to take a line of protest and of disappointment at what, we have been so earnestly assured this afternoon has been an honest attempt by able, and patriotic men to arrive at a settlement of this great dispute.
But I am compelled to say that my disappointment is bitter at the facts as they stand. I am dismayed at the ruthless energy with which the extremely well-meant attempt at a co-promise in 1902 has been pursued until it has issued in the proposals of the
1548
present Bill. I believe that feeling is shared by many even-minded, godly, equitable and informed Nonconformists. Speaking for the bishops, I may say that most of us have had added to our somewhat heavy nominal duties the duty during the past summer of speaking at, and usually presiding over, meetings occasioned by this Bill. The county of Durham, which I represent in some sense, is, I think, fairly typical of many important parts of England. It is vastly industrial, and it is largely pervaded by energetic and living Nonconformity. Its people are frank and outspoken to a delightful fault, or, I would rather say, to a delightful degree—thank God for it ! and the meetings summoned there, which have been quite free and open to the expression of various opinions, have been most instructive to the observer.
Every one who knows the county of Durham will bear witness to the unexampled extent to which meetings to oppose this Bill as it stands have attracted popular interest and inspired almost unanimous enthusiasm. For example, I will take two important towns—West Hartlepool and Sunderland. There was summoned at West Hartlepool a public meeting which was attended by 3,000 people, of whom fully half were men. A large number of Nonconformists were known to be in that meeting. There was a certain amount of very moderate and good-humoured interruption and heckling from a group of non-sympathisers near the door. It was answered by the speaker heckled promptly and with complete success as regards the sudden cessation of the interruption, and perfect-good humour was maintained throughout the meeting. One of the votes of thanks was seconded by a working man of the town—a Congregationalist leader, actively in co-operation with the Labour Party —and his speech emphasised the value of the protest which the Church was making in favour of national religious education. At the close of the meeting ten persons out of the 3,000 held up their hands against the resolution in which the sense of the meeting was summed up.
At Sunderland, full of the Nonconformity I have referred to, a meeting on this subject was convened in the great

1549
Drill Hall, and to the surprise of its promoters it was attended by 4,000 people, of whom a very large majority were men, and mostly working men. There was a most extraordinary responsiveness and electrical sympathy about that meeting, and at the close it was calculated that only five hands were held up against the resolution. At a meeting in South Shields one of the most important speeches against the Bill was delivered by a Presbyterian minister, and another Nonconformist minister, whose congregation numbers 600 members, has throughout the whole controversy taken a consistent line with the Church of England.
I am convinced that there is a feeling in the country which may be interpreted as a mandate to the House of Lords to do nothing inconsiderate, but to approach this Bill with the consciousness that there is a mass of feeling behind which looks upon this House rather as a substitute for a referendum than the protector of sectarian interests. The cause for which we stand should inspire courage; it is not a sectarian cause, not a proselytising cause; it is a cause in which the whole Christianity of the rising generation among the working classes of the country is concerned. There is no security that what is called the Cowper-Temple teaching of religion will remain—indeed, it is largely ceasing to be what it has been; and I hold that the Church of England, which is not a sect, which is not a denomination merely—it is older than the nation—has the position and capabilities for doing for the rising generation what no other Christian body as constituted to-day can do to preserve the teaching of revealed eternal truths. With a knowledge of a great backing in the country and mighty reasons, I exhort your Lordships to consider the Bill not merely from the point of view of what is best for the immediate present, but looking to the long distant future in this matter of children's education.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like at the outset of my few remarks to notice very briefly a suggestion which during the last few days has been repeatedly made to me, and made to me by noble Lords for whose
1550
opinions I entertain very deep respect, and whose judgment is entitled to every consideration. I have been asked by several Members of your Lordships' House whether it would not have been better if the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill had stood over until the month of October. My friends were able to adduce weighty reasons in favour of that course. The Bill had been in our hands but a very few hours when this debate began; it has been greatly altered daring its passage through the House of Commons, and it contains many important provisions which were not there discussed. In these circumstances, it was not unnatural to ask that more time should be given to the House of Lords before we give the Bill a Second Reading. But, on the other hand, after consulting with many of our supporters, it seemed to me that the attitude of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House towards the Bill was perfectly clear, and that it was desirable that this attitude should be made plain to the country without further loss of time. I understand that most of us are ready to admit that some modification of the Act of 1902 is inevitable; but we hold very strongly that in submitting these particular proposals for the alteration of that Act His Majesty's Government have very seriously misunderstood the feeling of the country towards this important subject.
We believe that this Bill would work if it were to pass in its present shape very grave injustice, out of all proportion to the alleged grievances it seeks to remove, and we, at any rate, cannot contemplate the passing of the Bill into law in the shape in which it now stands. On the other hand, we recognise that the Bill contains admissions of some very important and far-reaching principles, admissions that we welcome as indicating a desire, at any rate, on the part of the framers of the Bill to deal in an equitable spirit with the question.
Holding these views it seems to us that it is our duty to try to amend this Bill, and we feel that it would be more respectful to the other House of Parliament—and I think we all feel that there there should be reciprocal respect shown by each House to the other—

1551
to read the Bill a second time and then address ourselves seriously to the task of removing the grave defects which we detect in it. If I have not incorectly described the attitude of the House, it is surely better that that attitude should be explained now, rather than that the country should be left in suspense for two or three months, during which no doubt all sorts of sinister motives would be attributed to your Lordships' House. But we do desire it to be clearly understood that in giving a Second Reading to the Bill we do not abate one jot or tittle of our right to deal with it as we think proper at a future stage. One other reason why I am glad the debate has not been postponed is that some of the speeches which have been delivered during the course of it are speeches that cannot fail to have a. very wide effect in the country; and if we only had to consider from that point of view the speech of the most rev. Primate who presides over the see of Canterbury, I should say that we have reason to be deeply grateful that the debate has taken place now.
What is our main complaint of this Bill? I think it may be expressed in a very few words by saying that the Bill doss very little for education and creates a vast amount of heart-burning and disturbance. The Bill has been described today as "above all things an educational Bill," I would like to put the accuracy of this description to a simple test. The Lord President of the Council introduced the measure in a long speech—not too long, because the subject is one calling for lengthened explanation—but I noticed that out of the hour and a half —I think that was about the time occupied—about an hour and a quarter were devoted to what he himself described as the "and region of the religious difficulty," and only in the last quarter of an hour of the time occupied by his speech did he find himself in what he gracefully described as "In the green fields with the children," and then he began to tell us of things the Bill did for the children, such things as the establishment of play centres, vacation schools, and I suppose I must include that early introduction to the dentist
1552
which is no doubt necessary, and upon which the noble Earl dwelt in eloquent terms.
It is even so with all this controversy. The absorbing interest of this religious question has swamped all the educational side of the problem. It has dispelled, so it seems to me, the sense of proportion of His Majesty's Government It has led them to exaggerate the extent of the Nonconformists' grievance. It has led them to underrate those other grievances which the Bill would infallibly create; to underrate the agitation which it would lead to, an agitation which I am convinced will be far more formidable than any which has been provoked by the existing condition of the law. For, my Lords, who accepts the Bill? The Nonconformists are in mutiny. The Duke of Norfolk, has told you frankly how the Roman Catholic Church regards the overtures which you have made to them. As to the Church of England, its feeling has been voiced by eloquent and unanswered speeches delivered from the benches opposite.
When we are told, as we have been told to-day, that we are to seek in this Bill for a final settlement of the education question, I can only admire the simplicity of those who venture to indulge in any hopes of the kind. We are told this is a Bill for extending popular control over our schools. Do we not forget that popular control is there already? There is only the smallest fraction of school life which is really withdrawn from popular control. But if we are anxious for popular control, is it not the case that this Bill bristles with restrictions on popular control? What is the popular control which refuses, as this Bill does, to take into consideration the wishes of the parents as to the manner in which their children are to be brought up?
The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack told us just now that this was impracticable, but I think he went on to say that, although it was out of the question to consider the wishes of all the parents, he regarded favourably the idea of admitting the claim of the majority of them. If he really frankly and fully admits that, and if we may proceed

1553
to amend this Bill on those lines—upon the lines of making it our business really to ascertain the views of the majority of the parents and to give effect to those views—then I say there is certainly some hope—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said was that it was impracticable to give effect to the doctrine that all the parents' wishes could be complied with, but that, if we could not have a system of that kind, we had done our best to give facilities by Clauses 3 and 4 and 5. I think that is what I said. I did not mean to lay down any general and universal proposition such as the noble Marquess has suggested.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No one has ever contended on this side of the House that it was possible to give effect to the wishes of every small section of the parents. Any arrangement of the kind must be limited by common sense and the local conditions. But what we contend for—and I still do not think the noble and learned Lord greatly differs from me—is that where the views of a large majority of the parents are clearly ascertainable, due regard should be paid to those views. This Bill has been represented as an attack on the Church of England. It is not only an attack upon the Church of England, it is an attack on denominational teaching of all kinds. But I do understand that the grievances of the Church of England should loom larger in the foreground of this question than any other. For the Church of England has undoubtedly made sacrifices for the sake of education which bulk larger than those made by any other part of the community, and I have been surprised at some of the attempts which have been made to belittle the extent of those sacrifices.
We were told this afternoon that there was not much difference between the exclusion of the Church from these schools and the annexation of high roads by the county councils. I venture to suggest that the roads and the schools do not stand on exactly the same footing. A well-equipped road is good enough for anyone to travel by, no matter by whom it has been equipped, but a well-found school is not good enough for those who desire
1554
that its moral equipment should be of a particular and special kind. We have had another analogy in the course of this debate. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture asked us why the owners of these schools should be so extremely anxious as to what was done with their property. It is simply, he said, a case, familiar to us all, in which people have embarked rather too freely on bricks and mortar and have overbuilt themselves. If that is the view of the Cabinet of which the noble Earl is a member, all I can say is that they have very grievously misapprehended the facts of the case, and the manner in which these facts are regarded by the people of this country.
The noble and learned Lord behind me dealt with the contention of the Lord President of the Council that there was nothing very unusual in such interference as this Bill contemplates with charitable trusts. I do not think the argument of the noble and learned Lord behind me was quite understood. I do not attempt to state these things in legal language, but what I have always understood is this—that the Courts of Law in this country have been in the habit of interfering with trusts when it could be shown that it was impracticable or inexpedient to carry out the intentions of the founders of those trusts, and what I should like to ask is whether any one is here to contend that in the case of these schools it has really become either impracticable or inexpedient to carry out the intentions of the persons who founded them. Parliament and the Law Courts of the country have for centuries past encouraged liberal-minded and generous people to establish trusts of this kind, and I cannot help fearing that the manner in which this Bill deals with these trusts will have a very deterrent effect upon such people in the future.
We have at any rate one common ground on which we can all of us on both sides of the House found ourselves. It is admitted on all hands that no one desires that our system of school education should be a purely secular system. The noble Earl put that forcibly and clearly when he said the people of the country would not have it; and I am

1555
glad that His Majesty's Government in that respect at all events have correctly gauged the feeling of this country. But, my Lords, I press that point because it seems to me that if that is true, the result is to fix upon the State the responsibility of seeing that education and religion are not allowed to drift apart; that the system should not become gradually and insensibly secular; that no violence should be done to the feelings of the parents; that religious instruction should not be discouraged; and that it should not be imparted by persons who are unfit or incompetent to impart it. I honestly believe that there is not one of those principles for which I could not find emphatic approval in the speeches which have been delivered by different Members of His Majesty's Government, but my complaint is that these principles are not embodied, or at any rate not embodied with sufficient distinctness in the Bill upon the Table.
Tried by those tests, this Bill seems to me to fail completely. There is nothing to prevent religious instruction dropping out of sight altogether in certain schools if the local authority desire it. There is no sufficient recognition of the wishes of the parents. There are no provisions to ensure that religious instruction should be given what the Bishop of St. Asaph appropriately called an honoured place. It is given on the contrary a place below the salt at our table, and there is no security that religious instruction should be given by persons who are competent to give it. We have been told that we should be content with what we commonly speak of as Cowper-Temple religion. I sometimes wish that from the jargon of these discussions we could banish that expression altogether. There is no such thing. The Cowper-Temple clause is, as has been said this afternoon, a series of negations. You tell us that the great body of the parents of this country are content with it. Give them an opportunity of telling you whether they are contented with it or not. Do not forget, that this denominational teaching may mean any thing or nothing, moreover I do notthink we have sufficiently taken into account the effect which is likely to be produced on so-called Cowper-Temple teaching by the alteration in the
1556
religious atmosphere of the voluntary schools. It is the contact, the neighbourhood, of the voluntary school that has, in the past kept up the standard of religious instruction in the council schools, and my fear is that when you place these transferred schools upon the same level as the council schools you may find that there is a distinct alteration in the religious atmosphere of Cowper-Temple teaching.
We are told that the principle of the Bill is that there, should be undenominational teaching supplemented by special religious teaching. In what manner is effect given to this principle? I take Clause 4. I for one feel deep gratitude to His Majesty's Government for having included Clause 4 in the Bill. I regard it as a proof that there is somewhere in the minds of the Government a real desire that this undenominational teaching
should be supplemented by religious teaching of a wholly different kind. The discovery of this clause in the Bill is like the discovery of a single bone of an extinct animal, which enables our palæontologists to reconstruct the skeleton of the whole animal, and I feel myself able, with that clause in my hand, to picture the kind of Bill which might, perhaps, have been produced to Parliament if the original framers of it had been allowed to pursue their object consistently, and as they would have desired to pursue it. Clause 4, at any rate, has this great merit. It admits in theory the establishment of denominational schools maintained by public funds, manned by teachers giving denominational instruction, who shall be appointed for their fitness to teach. And there can be no doubt that the Minister for Education really believes that these advantages were going to be given in full measure to those who desired them; for do not let us forget his memorable statement to the Jewish deputation when he told them that the clause might require strengthening, but that its intention was that schools which came within its conditions should be carried on just as they are now.
The full application of the principles he then set forth might have been the means of saving denominational instruction, but

1557
the Bill falls very far short of fulfilling the expectations held out by the right hon. Gentleman. We have the arbitrary geographical limit within which the clause may operate, the complex and irritating procedure, and the futile appeal. Is it really exaggeration to say that the luckless persons who desire to obtain these extended facilities will have to run a kind of obstacle race, in which they will have to surmount all the barbed wire entanglements with which the facilities are surrounded, at the end of which—and this is the pathetic thing—they may find themselves put off by admission to the proud position of a State-aided school? And what does that mean? State aid schools means short commons, and that is the ultimate fate of any of those schools which may have the misfortune of having to negotiate with a perverse local authority. I am not so impressed with the infallibility of local authorities as to believe that no such thing as a perverse local authority is to be found; and, if the local authority is indeed perverse, it will have the double satisfaction of relegating the school to the position of a State-aided school and keeping a certain amount of rates in its own pocket.
Then facilities are to be given to other schools under Clause 3, and it is on this clause that Church of England schools obviously have to rely. What is the logical, what is the liberal principle on which we should expect these schools to be dealt with? Is it not that the wishes of the majority should prevail and that the utmost consideration should be shown to those who are in a minority? The Bill, no doubt, holds out the expectation of ordinary facilities to schools of this class; but let me point out how illusory these facilities are. To begin with, if the local authority does not apply to take over a school, away go the ordinary facilities ab initio. Then we want to know what are these facilities? There is no definition of them in the Bill. We are continually referred back to these facilities. I am reminded of the military debate we had here the other night. When noble Lords opposite were told they were diminishing the Army, they said— "Oh, but look at the number of men you are to be given on a Militia basis."
1558
But no one told us what this Militia basis was, and in the same way no one has told us what these facilities are to be. All we are told is what these facilities are not. We know that the religions instruction to be given under them is not to be paid for out of the rates, that it must not be given by the teacher or on more than two days a week, and also that it must be given under the absolute control of the local authority, which is free apparently to subtract from this unknown quantity as much or little as it pleases.
What I have said has reference to what are called transferred schools; but what of the other provided schools, those which are usually described as council schools? In a speech delivered early in the year the Minister for Education used language which was certainly interpreted by all who read it as holding out the expectation that these ordinary facilities would be given, not only in the transferred schools, but also in all porvided schools, that is, including council schools. I freely admit I draw a distinction between transferred schools and council schools, and I do so because, if you had left the transferred schools alone and left them in possession of a due amount of denominational and religious teaching, you would have had a very good case for not disturbing the status quo of the council schools. But, if you are going to place the whole of the schools on more or less one dead level, we have a, right to ask whether you are going to do anything in the case of council schools to redress the balance and set right the injustice you have done in. the case of the transferred schools.
So sum up the question of facilities, does it not come to this, that in the end the urban schools have the dismal prospect of being driven into the position of State-aided schools, that the rural voluntary schools, the transferred schools, may, under this Bill, be cheated at the outset of the privileges to which they are entitled, and that the only class of schools which is left alone and allowed to retain the status quo are the council schools? Whatever you may think of that, it is not even-handed treatment.

1559
With regard to the question of teachers, we are told that the essence of this Bill is to abolish tests for teachers. So far as I am aware, at this moment there are no tests for teachers. I do not know of any; but, be that as it may, I do not think any of us desire that the profession of teacher should be a close profession; but is that any reason why a teacher should be allowed to teach a subject of which he is ignorant, and which he is incompetent to teach? We have abolished tests for the Universities, but I have yet to learn that when the authorities of a college desire to appoint a teacher in a particular subject, they do not select a man who is thoroughly competent to teach that subject. There is a very remarkable divergence of views between the statements that have been made upon this point by different members of His Majesty's Government. In the first place, in the speech to the Jewish deputation, Mr. Birrell, after the passage which I have already quoted, went on to say—
"the intention of the clause certainly is that the teachers should remain the same as they are, those who are most qualified to give the particular religious instruction which has hitherto been given in the schools."
In the latest debates in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words—
"In the next place, no teacher appointed and paid by the State is to be appointed hereafter subject to the condition that he is to give religious teaching, or that he is to belong to any particular religious communion, or any religious communion at all."
If that view is to prevail, what becomes of the pledge given by the Minister for Education; if, on the other hand, the view of the Minister for Education is to prevail, how is it to be reconciled with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
This grievance of the teachers is to my mind the more serious because it is a double grievance. It is a grievance of the teachers themselves, and it is a grievance of the parents whose children they teach. I cannot conceive a greater wrong to do the parents of the children than to deprive these children of the advantage of being taught by men or women who have been used to teach them, who know how to teach them, and
1560
who are qualified to teach them in these most solemn and important subjects. As to the teachers themselves, is it not to put, I would almost say, an outrageous affront upon these teachers, these men who have worked conscientiously at their profession, who care about religious instruction, who know how essential it is to the whole of the instruction which they are giving to their pupils, to say to them suddenly, "You may teach all other subjects; but this, the most important subject of all, you are to be precluded by Act of Parliament from teaching to your pupils."
How is this Bill going to work? Experienced and recognised teachers are to be withdrawn, and then you are to bring in, I do not exactly know from where, a kind of emergency man to undertake this duty. These men will not know the children, the children will not know them. It is a remarkable fact that, when in the other House an Amendment was moved with the object of permitting the teacher to remain in the room whilst this religious instruction was being imparted, that Amendment was rejected by His Majesty's Government.
Discouraged though I am by the manner in which this question has been treated, I do discern a ray of hope. I am glad to notice that in one clause of the Bill, Clause 11, words have been inserted providing that, if a vacancy arises in the office of teacher while the school-house is used under this section, the local education authority shall in choosing the teacher appoint a teacher who is willing to give the religious instruction required under this section. I hope we may regard that admission as the germ of other admissions which will be ungrudgingly accorded to us at a future stage of the consideration of this Bill. I am also somewhat encouraged by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. He gave us comfort in this matter. He said—" Never mind the Bill, it will be all right; you will see the teachers will gravitate towards the schools in which they are really most fitted to teach. The local authorities will naturally select the best men." As my noble friend knows, I am not a believer in the infallibility of local bodies. I cannot help thinking my noble friend may possibly be ready to assist us in

1561
giving the local authorities some little encouragement to be careful how they select teachers for their schools.
The part of the Bill which relates to Wales was dealt with so completely by my noble friend Lord Cawdor that I pass it by. The Welsh part of the Bill supplies what I hope I shall not be considered disrespectful if I describe as the comic element in this tragedy. I shall not follow the example of the Bishop of St. Asaph, who in his speech pursued the elusive phantom of the Welsh Minister, and dealt with the attributes it was once proposed to confer upon him. I almost wish we might have that Minister, and that he might be selected from the ranks of your Lordships' House. I venture to say that the right rev. Prelate and Lord Cawdor would give him some extremely interesting quarters of au hour.
'There is one other matter about which I wish to say a word. It has hardly been referred to. I mean the question of the finance of this Bill. I suppose it has not been referred to on the ground that the question of privilege, in connection with which we had a discussion yesterday, deprives us of all interest in such questions. It is a matter which requires a great deal of discussion. The taxpayers' money has to be spent for this purpose, and we have not had, so far as I am aware, one ounce of information as to the calculation upon which the demand for £1,000,000 has been based, as to the general lines upon which it is to be distributed, or as to its sufficiency to meet the reasonable requirements which may be expected if this Bill becomes law.
It seems to me that the duty of your Lordships' House this evening is plain. We none of us, I believe, desire to reject this Bill, bad as it is, at any rate at this stage. We cannot entertain the idea of passing it in its present form. We believe that it will require not only Amendment, but drastic Amendment in Committee, and we shall propose such Amendments. We do not despair of being fairly met by noble Lords opposite. They have, and particularly the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, expressed an earnest desire that this question should be dealt with in a spirit of consideration and with a desire to bring about a settlement of a difficult and thorny question.
1562
We do hope that, when we come to discuss these points of detail, they will consider with an open mind the proposals which we may make, and that they will give us their assistance in removing the grave defects which this Bill discloses at every turn. In the meantime we do not part with our full right to treat the Bill as it may seem to us fit to treat it when the attempt has been made to amend it, and when we know what the result of that attempt has been. It is upon that distinct understanding, and upon that distinct understanding alone, that we agree this evening to the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I must in the first place express my satisfaction at the tone of the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. He is, no doubt, a strong opponent of many of the provisions of this Bill, and he has not hesitated to express his opposition strongly and plainly. He has given to the House advice which I may perhaps be pardoned for saying is of a very sound description in regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Committe Stage will afford the proper opportunity for discusing details, and His Majesty's Government will then be prepared to meet objections which may be raised frankly and, I hope, fairly.
I do not think the provisions of the Bill are rightly understood in many respects. I am not surprised at it. This Bill, as my noble friend has said, has been but a very short time in the hands of noble Lords, but it has been in their hands a day longer than was the Bill of 1902. It has been my endeavour to give the House the greatest consideration. On some of the points which have been referred to by my noble friend I will give explanation as far as I can, but the end of this debate on the Second Reading is not a favourable time for detailed explanation Your Lordships are going to have a much longer period for the consideration of this measure than usually falls to your lot. You will be able between this and the day when the House will meet again to consider all its provisions in the fullest detail, and when we come back refreshed from our rest we shall he able more fully to enter into discussion of them.

1563
My noble friend said that one effect of the Bill would be to discredit religious instruction. I cannot for a moment admit that the Bill shows any wish to discredit religious instruction or any indifference on that matter. My noble friend himself said that he recognised gladly that we were the opponents of secular education and desired to see religious education in the schools. But my noble friend seemed to think—and I have heard the remark before in the course of the debate—that the tone of religious instruction in provided schools—and most schools will be provided under this Bill—would be lower than the present standard because of the lessening of the extent of denominational education. That is a very subtle argument, but I venture to doubt whether it is correct. It is a statement which can only be proved by practice. I should rather have thought that if you threw increased responsibility upon local bodies with respect to the giving of that religious instruction which is valued by the people of this country you would increase their interest and their desire to make the religious instruction real.
It has been said that the parents of the children will not be content with what is called—I share my noble friend's dislike for the phrase—Cowper-Temple instruction. But a large number of the parents of the country have been quite content with that instruction for six and thirty years, and until I see it I cannot persuade myself that there is likely to be any wide difference in their feelings in the future. My noble friend said he was grateful to us for Clause 4. In my judgment Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill. Without Clause 4 it would have been an unjust and indefensible measure. I have no hesitation in making that statement. But I think noble Lords opposite have not altogether grasped the exact meaning of Clauses 4, 5, and 6. When we get into Committee I hope we shall be able to show that they will be more efficient for the purpose for which they were intended and will have a wider and more useful scope than noble Lords opposite at present appear to think.
With regard to Clause 3, my noble friend thought the facilities there given
1564
should be extended to all council schools. But if the facilities are not valuable why extend them? If they are valuable-I think it would not be a wise step to introduce them into schools which never have been subject to them before. But I wish to draw attention to one thing which I do not think is altogether appreciated. If your Lordships will look at sub-section (5) of Clause 3 you will see that it is there provided in regard to transferred schools that—
" Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school."
There has been some discussion upon the various syllabuses that had been introduced into the council schools. They differed one from another, and some of them went far in the direction of providing a form of religious instruction that would be generally acceptable. Some of these-syllabuses, if I am not mistaken, met with the approval of the most reverend Primate, and I am anxious that the most reverend Primate should view with favour the suggestion that it will be in the power of those who transfer their schools under that sub-section to make a bargain as to the nature and character of the syllabus which is to be used in the schools so long as it is consistent with Section 14 of the Act of 1870.
My noble friend professes small confidence in local authorities. I confess that I have a more extensive confidence in them. But this great and overwhelming distrust of local authorities is rather a novel doctrine for noble Lords opposite to hold, because in the Act of 1902 they destroyed the school boards, which had great and valuable experience, and which had a great accumulation of educational knowledge, and they themselves delivered over the management of these schools to the ordinary local authorities. I have no doubt there are local authorities who, in this and in many other matters, do not always act wisely and well. It is very painful to me to have to observe, in the course of this.

1565
debate, that the local authority with which I was at one time closely connected, the West Riding County Council, has been held up to reprobation. I am sorry to say I cannot defend many of the acts of that county council. I wish I could on account of my personal relations with it. But what I want to point out to your lordships is that the West Riding County Council protested against being charged with these duties; they passed resolutions refusing to undertake them, and it was noble Lords opposite who, in the Act of 1902, forced these duties upon them.
With regard to the question of trusts, I think my noble friend is not quite correct in the view he takes. I am advised that the Commission have no power to touch any single school which can continue to fulfil its trust. They will not be able to touch any school which is still able to carry out the conditions and duties of its trust; and when they do deal with a school they will deal with it, not arbitrarily, but under the rules and practice of the law, and with the application of the doctrine of cypres. Therefore I do not think there is much justification for my noble friend's fear on that point.
My noble friend touched on the question of 'No tests for teachers.' In Clause 8 of the Bill it is provided that mo teacher shall be called upon to give any religious instruction to which he objects, which I think we shall all be inclined to agree is just to him, and right to other people, and that he shall not be required to belong to any particular religious denomination. The actual provisions in the Clause are as follows:—
" A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not give any religious instruction of a special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in any school in which facilities for that instruction are afforded under this Act, except where permitted to do so by the local education authority in cases where extended facilities are so afforded. A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any religious instruction, and shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed, or to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or place of religious worship."
With regard to the qualification of the teachers to give religious instruction,
1566
it is the obvious and necessary duty of the local authority to appoint persons who are fit to undertake that duty. As to the £1,000,000, the money has not vet been, and will not at present be, allocated. A Bill will be brought in next year to deal with the subject, and that, it seems to me, will be the occasion to discuss the allocation of the money.
This is a Bill which may be looked at in a variety of aspects. One of those aspects, at all events, is the practical one, and, if we look at it from that aspect, we must take into account what are the circumstances under which the Bill has been brought forward and what is the position which His Majesty's Government found when they entered into office last December. In order to bring that matter before your Lordships more plainly, it is necessary that I should go back over the past history of the education question. I tender my most grateful thanks to the most rev. Primate for the manner in which he spoke of my share in the passing of the Act of 1870. The part I was privileged to take in the passing of that measure is one of the matters of which, in a long public career, I am most proud. The principles of the Act of 1870, the real underlying principles, I have not abandoned, and I am not tempted to abandon them. But what were those principles? The most rev. Primate most justly pressed the views I expressed as to one of the main principles of that Act—namely, that you should not lay aside and cast off the large number of denominational schools which existed in every part of the country at that time, but should make use of them and supplement them with board schools. But that Act—I am speaking of it as it passed and not as it was brought in— gave no assistance to voluntary schools out of the rates, and it laid down very distinctly the principles on which the State made provision out of the Exchequer for those schools. No State grant, it was laid down, should be made in respect of any religious teaching, and no such grant was in any year to exceed the income of the school for that year which was derived from voluntary contributions, school fees, or any source other than the Parliamentary grant.

1567
Those were the principles on which Parliament dealt in 1870 with voluntary schools, and I confess, my Lords, that I am unable to see that those principles differ very much from the spirit of this Bill or that the conditions upon which the grant was given are alien to its provisions. As the Bill of 1870 was introduced it did contain provisions by which grants could be made by local authorities to denominational schools. Mr. Gladstone, one of the most powerful Ministers of our time, wished to give assistance from the rates to denominational schools, and he had no love for a Cowper-Temple clause. But in the Parliament of 1870 he was forced to give up the notion of aiding denominational schools from the rates—though he gave in exchange an increased grant from the State—and to accept from the hands of Mr. Cowper-Temple that clause of which we have heard so much in the course of this debate.
I should have thought there were many lessons to be learned from that history, and many which might have been applied in 1902. The Act of 1870 lasted for thirty-six years. I am not here to say that in that long period it had not become necessary to amend it. but I do hold that it was not necessary to abandon its principles. The Act of 1870 was a compromise. But who tore up that compromise? Who disregarded the principles of that Act, and, casting aside all the warnings of its history, for the first time put the voluntary schools on the rates? The Government of 1902 and its supporters. I do not believe that a greater injury to the interests of voluntary schools, in which I have always felt and continued to feel a deep interest, could have been inflicted than was inflicted by bringing them on the rates. The late Government destroyed the Act of 1870 and abandoned its principles, and in the Act of 1902 they put the voluntary schools upon the rates and put them under the control, not of bodies elected ad hoc, like the school boards, but of county councils and borough councils elected for other purposes. That was their principle and their policy. They disregarded the experience of the past and the warning of Archbishop Temple—that to place the
1568
voluntary schools on the rates was a step on the down grade. And now they are surprised that their experiment has failed. I thought there was, in the speech of the most rev. Primate, a slight indication that he had somewhat doubted the wisdom of all the provisions of the Act of 1902. But the occupants of the right rev. Bench one and all, supported that Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: There was one exception.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am delighted to hear it. But the right rev. Prelate was the only exception. There was a shade of regret for the Act of 1870 in the tone of the voice of the most rev. Primate, but you cannot go back to 1870. You have introduced a dangerous, system; you have put the denominational schools on the down grade, and you cannot go back to a state of things which you have voluntarily and, as I think, wantonly abandoned.
When you handed over the administration of affairs to His Majesty's present Ministers, what was the state of the country? The Act of 1902 had raised, vehement opposition. It had disturbed Wales; it had shaken the West Riding; of Yorkshire; it had met with the fiercest opposition from a united Nonconformist body, who have never relaxed that strong and earnest determination with which they are accustomed to work for anything they take in hand. We know what has been the result of the General Election. The circumstances in which His Majesty's present Government were placed were not of our own creation—they were our damnosa here ditas, and it was with this position that as practical men we had to deal.
When we came to consider what course we should take in respect of this Bill the first question we had to deal with was whether we should propose a system of secular education or retain the provision for religious education. Our own inclination, and what we believed to be the desire of the vast majority of the people of the country, was to reject the secular system. We determined to propose a system of education based upon religious instruction. It seemed to us

1569
that it must be a system that would meet with wide acceptance among the people, and we found what is called Cowper-Temple teaching in operation. It had worked well for thirty-six years. My noble friend Lord Halifax, for whose earnest, strenuous, and determined conviction upon this subject I have the highest respect, spoke of Cowper-Temple instruction as Unitarianism. I ask my noble friend whether lie means to say that the people of this country are Unitarians? I do not believe it. I believe that with the form of religious instruction which goes by the name of Mr. Cowper-Temple the large majority of the people of this country are content. I will be perfectly frank with your Lordships. It does not suit me; I would not allow a child of mine to go to that instruction. That is an opinion that I share with others, but we are in a minority. I believe, as I have said, that for the large majority of the people of the country that teaching is be far satisfactory; I do not want to press the point further—that it contents the parents.
The Cowper-Temple clause is one of the most illogical clauses in an Act of Parliament I have ever known. It prohibits nothing except formularies and the Catechism. You may teach under it the infallibility of the Pope or you may teach Unitarianism. But it has done in practice precisely that which those who proposed it intended it to do. It has established a system of religious instruction which is known by the name of undenominationalism, and it is a form —a weak and feeble form—of religious instruction which has been accepted by the majority of the people of the country. Therefore it was the only system to which we could turn to establish a system of education founded upon religious instruction and paid for out of the rates. In 1902 the late Government were ready enough to reject the teaching of the past, but they left the Cowper-Temple clause in force in the provided schools, and there it has remained.
Some persons out of doors have spoken as if they had -the idea that this Cowper-Temple teaching was a new religion invented by His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships know
1570
what nonsense that is. Your Lordships know how long that system has been in force, yet there are some people who think it is the invention of the President of the Board of Education, and they have called it by a bad pun "Birreligion." Having been in existence since 1870, it has never been condemned by the public opinion of the country. The Government readily admit that there were those who honestly object to that teaching. The Roman Catholics will not touch it, and there are others who take the same view. Their case required to be dealt with, and the Government have endeavoured to deal with it. With regard to the single school districts, you could not have an arrangement there which disregarded the opinion of any considerable minority. We thought it best in districts of that sort to maintain the Cowper-Temple teaching with such facilities as the Act proposes. I believe that we were bound to regard and to protect the conscientious feelings of Nonconformists in these districts, and that is the reason why we have excluded them from the operation of our other clause. But in other districts we have provided a system which we hope and believe will be found to work far more satisfactorily than some people seem to imagine. This is not the time at which to discuss these arrangements. They will come before your Lordships when we get into Committee, and we shall then be able to examine them in detail.
Another policy of education is founded on the secular view, and a secular system with facilities for religious teaching all round has been suggested. In regard to that suggestion, I object, first, that the all-round facilities plan would not be generally acceptable, and, secondly, that if it were adopted there would be a tendency for the facilities to lapse, while the secularism would remain. The choice that we have to make is between a system of religious instruction generally acceptable to the majority of the people and a system of pure secularism. I do not altogether share the optimism of my noble friend Lord Crowe as to the remoteness of the danger of secular education. Changes in public opinion are very rapid at times, and the increasing number of

1571
people interested in education may get impatient of religious disputes and say, "A plague on al your houses." A s cular system is recommended to many on grounds of logic, simplicity, and finality. In its favour is being thrown the influence of the Labour Party, and the Labour Party have come to stay and will be found in future Parliaments in larger numbers than they muster in the House of Commons to-day. I have endeavoured to show what were the circumstances with which the Government had to deal. These circumstances were not of the Government's creation. They were circumstances inherited from our predecessors. They were difficult, I admit. They were grave as regards the future. This Bill is an honest attempt to deal with them on just and popular principles, and as such I ask for it your Lordships' careful and deliberate consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I think it would be convenient if the noble Marquess could tell us on what day in the resumed session it is proposed to take the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have consulted noble Lords on both sides in the endeavour to find out what would be most acceptable to the House generally. My proposal is to put down the Bill not for Tuesday, October 23rd, but for Wednesday, October 24th. I believe it is very likely there will be some discussion on going into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If we agree to that arrangement I think it should be without prejudice as to the day when the actual Committee stage should begin.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: That must depend upon what passes on the Motion to go into Committee. I have just been informed by the Clerk of the Parliaments that notice of an Instruction on going into Committee has been given. That may take some time. I desire to meet the wishes of the House and to give the utmost opportunity for discussing the
1572
details of the measure in Committee, but I cannot be a consenting party to unnecessary delay.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is in the interest of subsequent expedition that I suggest a later day for going into Committee. It would appear that we might be obliged to enter into discussion of Amendments on the Wednesday. I hope that at least one more day will be given.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The appeal of the most rev. Primate is entitled to every consideration. I will not propose that we shall go into Committee before Thursday, October 25th. For the convenience of many noble Lords on both sides of the House I will propose, when we meet again in October, that the House should sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but not on Fridays, so as to give a longer "week-end" To noble Lords who wish to go into the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We do not desire to raise any objection to the noble Marquess's proposal, but it must be clearly understood that we are not to be held bound by anything that has passed this evening to commence the actual Committee stage on any particular day.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday, October 24th next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I have obtained the information which I was asked to get about this Bill, and will give it to your Lordships. Up to the year 1898, when the Irish Local Government Act passed, counties in Ireland might combine not only with adjacent counties, but with counties of cities and counties of towns within their borders, to erect or reconstruct bridges. By the Act of 1898 "counties of cities,"

1573
and "counties of towns," were abolished, and with them went their power of combining with the counties of which they formed part for the purpose of building or reconstructing bridges. In consequence, and in this instance, though the county council of Kilkenny and the -corporation of Kilkenny are anxious to co-operate in rebuilding the bridge over the Nore, they cannot do so.
This Bill simply reconstitutes such places as Kilkenny city, "counties of cities," so as to enable them to take the same advantage of the Bridges (Ireland) Acts as they might have taken before the Act of 1898 passed. This Bill is approved of by the Local Government Board for Ireland. His Majesty's Government were not responsible for it, but approves of it, and gave every possible facility for its passage through the House of Commons. I hope this explanation will be considered satisfactory by your Lordships.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I suppose there is some reason for hurrying the Bill through now. I have no doubt the Local Government Board for Ireland have proceeded with the utmost fairness in the matter, and in the circumstances I offer no objection to the Second Reading.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: It is a matter of urgency, because the promoters of the Bill wish to proceed with the building of the bridge.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, "That the Bill be committed. —(Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do think it is an objectionable practice that your Lordships should be asked to suspend the Standing Orders for a Bill in respect of which there does not appear to be any great urgency. The noble Lord moved the Second Reading of the Bill before it had been printed. We remonstrated, and he postponed the Second Reading for a few hours. He has made a statement explaining the objects of the Bill, and it has been given a Second Reading. The noble Lord now proposes to hurry the measure through
1574
all its remaining stages. That appears to me to be a very objectionable practice. If, however, the noble Lord can really assure the House that this is a matter of most urgent importance, I will accept that assurance and offer no further opposition. But if he cannot tell us that he knows it to be urgent I do not think we ought to suspend the Standing Orders in respect of this Bill.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As far as I recollect, noble Lords opposite when they were in office did this a great deal oftener than we are doing it. Noble Lords opposite keep asking the same question. The whole object of this Bill is to facilitate the construction of this bridge. It has come up as an unopposed Bill from the House of Commons with the support of His Majesty's Government, and I think that is sufficient to enable us to conclude that necessity for it was fully made out.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: In one respect I was delighted with the speech of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) because it showed clearly that he had no expectation of coming into office at an early date, because if he had any such expectation he certainly would not have been so injudicious. The erection of this bridge is an urgent matter, and I hope your Lordships will pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-day.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am informed that the Bill was only brought up to your Lordships' House yesterday, and it has not yet been printed and circulated.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I chance to know this town from old association. The bridge in question is a most difficult corkscrew kind of bridge that one has to approach with great hesitation and with an earnest hope that one will get over it safely. I am told that the bridge has become somewhat more dilapidated that when I knew it, and that there is a great desire to begin this work at once. In these circumstances I think your Lordships might allow the Bill to go through.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Perhaps the House may be content with the evidence which has been brought forward by my noble and learned friend (Lord Ashbourne), who figures for the nonce as the oldest inhabitant and has been able to give us a local opinion of the kind for which my noble friend Lord Salisbury pressed so earnestly. I think we were entitled to be satisfied that there was some urgency about this measure; and but for that urgency it would be a very unfortunate precedent to allow a Bill of this kind to be hurried through. If the plea of urgency is accepted, I think the Bill might be allowed to go through.
On Question, Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Debate on the Motion, "That the Third Report from the Select Committee be received" resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In deference to the wishes of noble Lords opposite I beg to withdraw my previous Motion and to move that the consideration of paragraph 4, which deals with the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, be adjourned and that the House do agree to the rest of the Report.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think it is an unfortunate arrangement that the meeting of the Select Committee on this question should have been put off till the last day but one of the present sittings, and that then the hour of the meeting of the Committee should have been changed on what I am bound to say was insufficient notice. There is no reason that I know of why the great proportion of this Report should not have been settled a fortnight ago. The real matter of importance before us at the moment, now that the other Question has been postponed, is the proposed surrender of certain rooms to the House of Commons. It is said in the Report that in return for the carrying out of this arrangement the Office of Works are to make structural alterations for the convenience of the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, this
1576
House is getting nothing which it does not possess except that the Office of Works has been graciously pleased to provide access to certain rooms which belong to us, but into which we have not been able to get. I believe those rooms are extremely high up; I understand they are on the second floor of this building. My point is that we are giving up a great deal too much of the accommodation which belongs to this House. Earlier in the session we gave up a very important room on the floor on which we are-now sitting. This is the second time in one session that we are asked to give up accommodation for which we get nothing: in return. This has happened in previous years, and I enter my emphatic protest against this continual surrender of the accommodation of your Lordships' House.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I would appeal to the noble Lord not to press; his opposition to this particular proposal. I think there is some excuse for his complaint with regard to the change in the hour of the meeting of the Committee, but there was also an unexpected change in the hour on which the House met, and it was only possible for the members of the Committee to be informed of the change at short notice. The rooms which are proposed to be given over to the House of Commons are three little rooms which face on to the Terrace. They are little more than cellars and are used for the storing of papers and books. These rooms, however, would be very convenient to Members of the House of Commons became they are close to the kitchen, and the proposal is to throw them into one so as to make another dining-room. It would also be a great convenience to the other House to have that extra accommodation in the autumn. There is a greater demand for dining accommodation now than formerly, and the surrender of the rooms in question will be no loss to us.
I now come to the rooms to which we are to get access. They are in a part of the House which the librarian used, to have. The librarian now has his own sitting-room on the same floor as the library, and this House will now

1577
come into possession of the rooms above in that particular House. There are three rooms which will be at the disposal of the messengers who will be displaced by this surrender to the House of Commons, and at the same time access will be given to four or five rooms above, into which it has been impossible up to now to get. I agree that we are not getting anything back from the House of Commons, but we are securing further accommodation for this House, and what we are giving up is not much use to us. The First Commissioner of Works is very anxious to be able to begin the structural alterations at once, so that the rooms may be ready by the time the House meets again in October. I hope therefore, your Lordships will agree to the Report in part as moved.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I might explain that the reason the meeting of the Committee was postponed till so late a period, was that I was trying to ascertain whether it would not be possible to get from the House of Commons some rooms in exchange for those we were giving up. The point was that there was nothing the House of Commons had which this House really required, and I therefore did not feel justified in insisting on the giving up of rooms which the House of Commons could ill afford to spare, and which this House really did not want. I thought the best thing in the interests of your Lordships was to get access to the large airy rooms upstairs which have been referred to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I object to the claim that for this surrender we are getting anything in return. The Office of Works are merely doing something which ought to have been done ten years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think, after the appeal of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, your Lordships would do well to agree to the proposal and offer no further opposition to the surrender of these rooms. But the moral of this conversation is that we really should insist upon being consulted in rather better time whenever encroachments of this kind—and I hope there will not be many more—are in
1578
contemplation. Of late years we have surrendered bit by bit very valuable accommodation, and I hope this is the last time a matter of this importance will be thrown at our heads without notice.
In Question, Report in part agreed to, and to be further considered on Tuesday, the 23rd of October.

COLONIAL MARRIAGES HILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
Education (Provision of Meals) Bill; Cabs and Omnibuses (Metropolis); Official Publications, etc.
Message to the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., of the Select Committees.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, "That the House do now adjourn till To-morrow at Eleven o'clock." —(The Marquess of Ripon.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Marquess what business it is proposed to take to-morrow morning. There are one or two Bills, notably the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, in which certain Amendments have been introduced and sent to the other House Is it proposed to take any of those Bills?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I raised this Question just now in conversation with the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, and I received from him a distinct assurance that if the Labourers (Ireland) Bill came back to your Lordships to-morrow without the Amendment which your Lordships inserted the other evening, it would not be proceeded with, but would stand over till October.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I believe the House of Commons will agree to the Amendment, but I quite confirm the understanding that has been come to. The only business to-morrow that I am aware of will be the Appropriation Bill.
On question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.