MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, it would be inconvenient to discuss such a new clause. What they were dealing with at present was the word “intimidates." acted wrongfully. For his own part, he should have supposed that the fact of a man using violence with this intent was proof of a wrongful act. It was difficult what would be an offence under these words. He did not intend to move an Amendment on the point, but wished to note it as an instance of how they might "darken counsel by words without understanding." Again, whereas by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which no one held to be too lenient, no intimidation or threats were criminal unless they would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person to keep the peace, now, as the clause was drawn, any kind of intimidation was MR. LOWE said, the natural effect of the view he took would be to endeavour to amend the clause as it stood, so far as they could, and in the end to substitute another clause for it, if it did not prove satisfactory. He now moved the omission of the words or intimidates." Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "or intimidates."-(Mr. Lowe.) made a substantive offence. That showed MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the what new and difficult questions had clause in its present form was really been opened up without the slightest less strong that it had been before. In necessity. He should presently move to its original form the words were "who omit the words "or intimidates," in threatens or intimidates ;" but there was order to take the opinion of the House a question raised as to whether a threat on the matter. Another provision was, was sufficient to bind a man over for, to the effect that attending at or near a and therefore the word "threatens" house or place of business merely to was omitted. Intimidation, however, obtain or communicate information, and was another matter altogether, and the not with a view to intimidate, should clause in its present form, instead of not be deemed to be watching or be- its being stronger than it was, was setting within the meaning of the Act. weaker. [Mr. Lowe: No, no!] In his That created a new offence by implica- view it was weaker. It now provided tion, for it followed that a person "at-that not only must there be some action tending" to intimidate was guilty of an offence; but if that was meant, "attending" should have been included in the catalogue of offences, and not left to be inferred from the statement that the converse should not be an offence. Nothing could be more dangerous or unfair than the use of ambiguous ex-be to leave intimidation wholly without pressions of this kind, especially in a measure which ought to be easy of interpretation, being, as it was, a law between the rich and the poor. The springing of an offence of this kind suddenly upon the country seemed to be one of the most imprudent pieces of legislation he had ever seen, and he was astonished that such a mistake should have been made. on the part of the offender, but it must have a certain effect on the person whom it sought to intimidate. MR. MUNDELLA said, whatever might have been the intention of the noble Lord who made the Amendment in the House of Lords, the effect would qualification or definition. As the Bill stood before, the intimidation was to be such intimidation as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over a person; but as it now stood, the word intimidates" was left entirely without qualification, so that the justice would have to decide as to what it might be. No doubt, the intention was to follow the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder, but that right hon. and learned Gentleman really defined what he meant by intimidation, using the words, "such an exhibition of force as is calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men." MR. ASSHETON CROSS pointed out that they were now on quite a different part of the clause-namely, the word "intimidates" alone, MR. MUNDELLA said, he simply | cessary to get rid of the word "coerce." wished to show how the word "intimi- To find a person guilty of threatening dates" ran through the whole clause, required some act to be proved. It was and governed the end as well as the a definite crime. But by striking out middle. The word used alone was liable the word "threatens" and leaving only to the grossest abuse. The words were the word "intimidates" the result was "Uses violence to or intimidates such that no overt act, nor anything done, other person, or his wife or children, or would be required to ensure a conviction injures property, or." A new enactment -a mere look, a mere walking up and to protect against violence or injury to down, merely "making a face at a property was not required. There ought workman's child would be all sufficient, to be some definition of the word in the if the child was intimidated thereby, sense laid down by the right hon. and for the clause said, "who intimidates learned Recorder, and then they would such other person, or his wife, or chilknow what was meant. Unless some dren." He appealed to Her Majesty's definition or limitation was introduced, Government not to change their policy, the effect would be that they would have but to adhere to it-to adhere to what a recurrence of all the trouble they had the House had accepted. already had. The law ought not to be left in so vague a state as it was left in by the Bill in its present form. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he was very much astonished to find so many words uttered on so narrow and MR. HOPWOOD said, that in the simple a question. The word "intimiold Act the word used was 66 "" coerce." dates" did not mean something passive, It was now proposed to substitute the but implied some action on the part of word "compel.' Of the two, he pre- the person intimidating, with a view to ferred the first as the more accurate de- prevent a man from doing that which he finition of what it was intended to pre-had a right to do, and which he could vent or punish. The word "compel otherwise do. If a child or a wife or was too vague and indefinite a phrase the man himself were unreasonably to use in the case of a criminal pro- frightened, the Judge who tried the case ceeding. would ask-"What was it that frightened you?" There must be an action on the part of the intimidator to cause fear; it was not merely the use of words which constituted the offence. Question put, "That the words 'or intimidates' stand part of the said Amendment." The House divided:-Ayes 52; Noes 40: Majority 12. SIR HENRY JAMES called upon the Government to give some answer to the arguments which had been used. They ought to make it clearly understood what had been done, not by the Home Secretary or the Government, but by those who had considered this matter in the House of Lords. If the clause stood as it was, workmen would be placed in an infinitely worse position than they were in at present, and the House of Commons would be giving up the fruits of their labours, not to dispassionate and calm consideration on the part of the House of Lords, but to what he must characterize as hasty legislation. Under the Act of 1871 a person, in order to be convicted under this part of the clause, had to threaten or intimidate another person in such a manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding him over, and that must be done with a view to coerce. If they had a severe law, Amendment proposed, after the word they inflicted that severe law only upon threats of personal violence or injury.' "intimidates," to insert the words "by a guilty person; but under a vague law the penalty might be inflicted upon an-(Mr. Edward Jenkins.) innocent person. The right hon. Gen- MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the tleman now stepped in with words which act committed would always be suffilessened the penalty, and thought it ne- cient to indicate whether there had been MR. EDWARD JENKINS moved to add after the word "intimidates" the following words, "by threats of personal violence or injury." He considered in a matter of this kind that some clear definition should be given to the meaning of the word "intimidates,” and he thought the best way to accomplish this was by adopting the Amendment he proposed. intimidation within the meaning of the section, and he could not assent to the Amendment. It was possible to make a man do something against his will without using violence. MR. HOPWOOD hoped the Amendment would be adopted, and said he thought some clear definition ought to be given to the word "intimidates." The interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman would extend the range of the Bill to the whole community. MR. STAVELEY HILL said, hon. Members seemed to forget that the clause was qualified by the words "wrongly and without legal authority." Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said Amendment." The House divided:-Ayes 42; Noes 53: Majority 11. On the Motion of Mr. Lowe, Amendment made by leaving out the words "and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing." MR. MUNDELLA then moved the insertion of the words "or peaceably to persuade," the object being that persons who might attempt to persuade a man to leave his employ should not come under the penalty for watching and besetting which was provided for under the section. Amendment proposed, in line 21 of the said Amendment, after the word "information," to insert the words " peaceably to persuade." (Mr. Mundella.) or MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, it was clear peacefully persuading was not illegal, and there could therefore be no object in inserting the words in the Bill. SIR HENRY JAMES said, the Lord Chancellor had stated that his new clause had been drawn strictly in accordance with the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder for the City of London. In that Charge peaceable persuasion was not held to be an offence, but heretofore it had been held by many Judges to be an offence, and, as such, had been punished within the limits of the old statute by the magistrates. If the words were not inserted, they would be able to do as they had hitherto done, contrary to the intention of the Legisla Mr. Assheton Cross ture, and the old complaint and disaffection would be left where they were. He hoped the House would not leave an old grievance unredressed. MR. HOPWOOD said, if the question was so self-evident as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said it was, there could be no objection to the insertion of the words. inserted in the said Amendment." Question put, "That those words be The House divided:-Ayes 41; Noes 53: Majority 12. MR. LOWE said, that as the Opposition intended to divide against the clause as it stood, he wished to read the Amendment which, if they were fortunate enough to overthrow the clause of the Government, they intended to propose in its place. It was to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause : "Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a legal right to do, or to do any thing from which he has a legal right to abstain -1, persistently follows such other person about from place to place; 2, hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or 3, follows such other person with one or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; or 4, besets or watches the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, with a view to compulsion as aforesaid, and not merely to obtain or communicate information, shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months." MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that the great boon which the working classes had got was not contained in the clause, but was to be found in the Bill itself. This clause was simply intended to put into fresh language the words of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He should never shrink from the provisions laid down in that Act, nor from the words he had expressed upon the subject. The law he wanted to have in force was that laid down in the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London; and that law, so far as he could determine it, should be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman had tried his hand once before, and had endeavoured to strike out the words "serious annoyance" altogether. The right hon. Gentleman now tried his hand again, and SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) (Mr. Raikes, The Lord Advocate, Mr. having just voted for retaining the words "peaceable persuasion," he had now the boldness and hardihood to ask the House to vote for a clause specially leaving out the words "peaceable persuasion," which two minutes ago he voted to insert. He could not have a stronger justification than that given by the right hon. Gentleman himself for resisting the proposed clause. MR. MUNDELLA would remind the Home Secretary that if the words "peaceable persuasion were not to be found in the proposed clause, the word "intimidates was also not in it. He believed that if the Home Secretary had been left to his own counsel, he would have consented to the insertion of such reasonable words as "peaceable persuasion." The right hon. Gentleman, he must admit, had conducted the Bill in a most equitable and conciliatory manner, and he regretted that he had at the last moment refused to insert the words "peaceable persuasion." As he had said, the clause was free from the word "intimidates," and on that ground he supported it. He did trust the House would have the courage to deal equitably in this matter, and to show liberal feeling towards the working man. The Government had dealt with these things in a manner, which, if they had been in Opposition, they would have regarded as revolutionary if introduced by the Liberal party. MR. MELLOR thought he might claim to know something of the working classes as well as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he could assure the House that the working men were exceedingly desirous to be protected from the tyranny of those whose combination would coerce them into compliance. The words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) were perfectly useless, because the magistrates on every bench in the Kingdom would require no such Amendments in order to guide their decisions. He should, therefore, oppose the clause. Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended." The House divided:-Ayes 55; Noes 41: Majority 14. Subsequent Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment. COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Motion made, and Question proposed, Chair."-(The Lord Advocate.) he MR. MAITLAND considered should not be doing his duty if he did not ask for attention to this Bill. It was a Bill of great importance, because it sanctioned a very bad principle indeed. He should, perhaps, have had greater respect for the policy of the Government if they had shown more thoroughness in what they had attempted; but the Bill, which began by asking if three new Judges were needed, had ended in a request for merely two new Judges. That certainly showed that even in the opinion of the Government themselves their original proposition was not one which ought to be supported, and he looked upon their present proposal as being equally uncalled-for. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had a very great acquaintance with the county of Lancashire; and what was the position of Liverpool in that county as to local Judges? Counting everybody who could be counted, there were not more than four local Judges in Liverpool. He (Mr. Maitland) believed that the number ought more properly to be said to be three, while in Glasgow at the present time they had five inferior Judges, in addition to three others that were in the county. Therefore, they had something like eight local Judges connected with Glasgow and its surroundings; while in Liverpool, which was not inferior in importance and population, and which, in fact, did more business, there were only three, or at the most four, local Judges. He should like some explanation of this anomaly, because if the people of Glasgow were to have these two additional Judges, he did not see how they could refuse Liverpool a similar number. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: We only ask for one more.] They asked for two, because they asked for a stipendiary magistrate, who was to be all intents and purposes a Sheriff substitute. Altogether, he did not think this was a charge which ought to be made on the Consolidated Fund. The Scotch Members had been charged with obstructing the policy of the Government in regard to the Sheriffs (Scotland) Bill. In their previous Bill the Government proposed to very largely increase the Sheriffs of Scotland-he believed by at least 20-which would have caused a charge of £40,000 per annum, and this he did not think would have been a very gratifying result, and he was glad they had succeeded in getting the previous Bill withdrawn. Bill considered in Committee. Preamble. On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made in line 4, by leaving out "two," and inserting "one.” Consequential Amendments made. Preamble, as amended, agreed to. Clause 1 (Commissioners of Treasury may grant salary to an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire). THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "funds from which the salaries of sheriffs are payable," and insert "Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, that the entire judicial system of Scotland required revision, especially as regarded the manner in which some of the Judges and officers of the Courts received their salaries. It was open to GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR grave objection to have salaries of the objected to the proposed change. He Courts and Sheriffs of Scotland drawn did not want the additional charge to be in two separate accounts-one the Civil put on the Consolidated Fund. It was Service Estimates, and the other the a source of great inconvenience to have Finance Accounts, rendering it impos-public officers paid in two, or more ways; sible to ascertain the numbers of different at present, some salaries were inserted officers or the rates of salary. There in the Civil Estimates and annually was also another objection to the practice of remunerating parties by fees. He believed the Lord Advocate was paid in five different ways. He did not begrudge the right hon. and learned Gentleman his salary, and if he had his way he would make it more. But it should be conditional on his whole time being devoted to the business of Scotland, and that he should be prohibited from appearing in any appeal or other cases. In conclusion, he strongly objected to a Bill of that nature being proceeded with at the fag-end of the Session, when many of the Scotch Members, having left town, could not be present to take part in the discussion. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he should be ready, when the proper time arrived, to discuss the question of the entire judicial system of Scotland; but that Bill had really little to do with the matter. It dealt with a pressing want which was felt at this moment. When he was in Glasgow last year, he took great pains to ascertain whether the want was a bona fide one or not, and he came to the conclusion that there was a real and actual want of an additional Judge for that city. He, therefore, hoped that the House would allow the Bill to proceed, as it only asked for one Judge, and not two, as stated by the hon. Member. Question put, and agreed to. voted by Parliament, whilst some salaries were inserted in the Finance Accounts, as part of the sum voted, in the lump, as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The result was that no hon. Member could ascertain the numbers and salaries of the Sheriffs, and other officers of the Sheriff Courts, owing to the whole being inserted in lump sums without information as to numbers or rates of salary. He believed that the last Act passed, about five years ago, rendered this mode of paying salaries to Sheriffs quite unnecessary. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the officers of the Treasury had stated that the Consolidated Fund was the proper phrase to use in the Bill. Amendment agreed to. HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICA- Order read, for resuming Adjourned |