to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living.” culated to injure a man's person or property; secondly, breach for which a man might be bound to produce surety He could understand an act calculated to for the maintenance of the peace; thirdly, cause injury or danger, and he could un- violence to, or the obstruction of, any derstand an act calculated to cause in-person in the manner defined by the Act jury to or loss of property, business, or means of living; but that an act should be punished with imprisonment and hard labour, that only produced a fear in a man's mind that he would suffer injury, or loss to his business or his property, was a most extraordinary thing. The inquiry would be a metaphysical one. How could he decide what effect a particular act might have on a particular man's mind? One person might not be afraid by reason of a particular act-he might not be afraid that it would cause injury or danger to himself, his family, his business, or property; whereas, a nervous man or an old woman might consider that almost anything said or done, however innocent it might be, would produce danger to person, or danger or loss to business or property. It was impossible that the word "fear" could be left in the clause, for it was impossible to leave the commission of a crime to depend on the nature and condition of mind of the person in regard to whose business or property the particular act which would constitute the crime would be done. It was impossible that the mental condition could be a proper test of the injury done. It was impossible, unless they wanted to comprehend everything, and bring every innocent word or act into the net, together with every form of exclusive dealing-it was impossible to allow the word "fear" to be the test of the crime. He would defy the Government to produce any Act of Parliament in which the fear which it might excite in a man's mind was made the test of a word spoken or an act done being a crime, and exposed the man who had spoken the word or performed the act to punishment. No; the test of the crime was the injury done to the person or property of the man in the opinion of a person of common understanding. If they went back to the Act of 1871, it set the matter beyond any question. The Act of 1871 and the Act of 1875 only stated the acts done, and nothing was left to depend upon the fear which might be excited in a man's mind. These acts were-first, violence, threats, and intimidation cal either by a master towards a workman, or a workman towards a master. Then there were words in the 7th clause of the Act of 1875 touching conspiracy. But the clause was not confined to conspiracy or to trades' unions, but comprehended all cases, and extended to all men. The acts that came under that were the using of violence or intimidation to a man so as to produce injury to his person or property; secondly, the persistent following of that person; thirdly, the hiding of the tools of that person; and, fourthly, watching or besetting that person's house or place of business; the fifth head mentioning two or more men. Any Judge could decide upon these acts. The mental condition of the person believed to have been injured had nothing to do with the matter. But, in the Bill before the Committee, the mental condition of the man who complained was made the test of the injury done; and he (Mr. Synan) contended it was impossible that such a clause could ever be passed by this House. It was impossible that it was not intended to confine this clause to what it had been declared that it should be confined. The Prime Minister had said he did not intend to apply a different law to Ireland to that which was applied to England, but only to adjust it so as to suit the individual circumstances of Ireland. Why, then, did the Government go beyond that intention? Were not the words of the Acts of 1871 and 1875 sufficiently comprehensive to cover the peculiar circumstances of "Boycotting' in Ireland, unless they meant to drag within the definition of "Boycotting" the system of exclusive dealing which under the Acts of 1871 and 1875 were perfectly legal? These were the grounds on which he was against the words of the clause; and as there was no other Amendment before them, save that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)— though his words went beyond the Act of 1875-and as he condemned the clause so completely, as, he thought, every other judicious and honest man must do, he should go into the Lobby with his hon. and learned Friend. tion. MR. GLADSTONE: I desire to make a suggestion. I would respectfully submit that this Amendment should now be allowed to come to a division. We all feel that we are on a matter of great importance, and I believe that everyone desires to make practical progress with the debate; but I wish to point out that no practical progress with the debate whatever can be made so long as we continue to discuss the subject on the immediate question before us. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Synan) has delivered a speech which, I think, contributes very much to the better understanding of the quesThat was preceded by what I may call the admirable speech of an hon. and learned Gentleman on this side of the House (Mr. Horace Davey); but those two speeches, if they referred to any part of this particular clause, referred to the latter part of it. We are now on the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), and these words have been stated by him-as has been admitted on all sides-to exclude altogether the question of "Boycotting." But it is agreed in almost every quarter that "Boycotting," in some shape or other, is to be included. The speeches of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and that of my hon. and learned Friend on this side of the House, were both on the question in what manner, and on what terms, we should deal with it. I say, let us get quit of the Amendment immediately before us. That has nothing to do with "Boycotting" whatever, and there has been no debate on it. During the discussion to-day hardly 10 minutes have been spent in considering the Amendment; and if we are now permitted to get rid of that question, we can then proceed to the consideration of other Amendments which have reference to the way in which the provisions of the clause can be adapted to the object which it is generally desired to attain. If it is meant to have any limitation at all, we should be allowed to get rid of this Amendment and proceed with the discussion of the Amendments proposing such limitation. MR. BIGGAR said, the right hon. Gentleman asked them to take a division on that particular question at that par Mr. Synan ticular moment; but there were several objections to that course, which he would state to the Committee. One important objection to having a division was, as the right hon. Gentleman himself had said, that the subject had not been sufficiently debated. If he (Mr. Biggar) understood the Prime Minister, what he said was that a particular question had been raised and had not been sufficiently debated. MR. GLADSTONE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; what I said was, that the debate had been completely exhausted, or, if I did not say it, that was my meaning. MR. BIGGAR said, that as he understood it, the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, said he thought the debate had drifted into one particular line-namely, the question of "Boycotting;" but he (Mr. Biggar) ventured, with all due deference, to say that there were other questions which might arise on this Amendment entirely outside the question of "Boycotting," questions which were entitled to very serious consideration, and on which he and other Members of the Committee had not expressed their opinion. The hon. and learned Member who had moved this Amendment (Mr. Charles Russell) last night ought-not, perhaps, according to ordinary routine, but according to what was desirable on a matter of such great importance-to be present to reply upon the whole case with regard to this particular Amendment. If that were a trumpery Amendment, of no importance, the contention of the Prime Minister might be entitled to considerable weight; but it was not a trumpery Amendment. was one of a very material character, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved it, owing, no doubt, to his professional duties, had not been able to attend and take part in the discussion of his own proposal. For that reason, he (Mr. Biggar) submitted that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not hold water, and that the debate should be adjourned, and the Bill considered at its present stage at 4 o'clock to-morrow. There was another important question in regard to this branch of the subject, and it was this-that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who was the Leader of that particular section of the House, had not yet had an oppor It tunity of expressing any opinion with regard to the Amendment before the Committee. For these reasons, he thought the best plan would be to move to report Progress, so that the matter might be further considered to-morrow. He would not, however, make the Motion, as there were several hon. Members who had not yet spoken, who desired to do so to-day. He himself had not spoken, and as he had taken notice of certain points in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk, which had not yet been answered, he should be glad to go on now, and offer an opinion upon the hon. and learned Member's observations. The earlier part of the clause was of a very general nature, and, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department had specifically said, was to take cognizance of one particular form of offence - namely, "Boycotting." But there was one peculiarity as to this word "Boycotting," and that was that, so far as he (Mr. Biggar) knew, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not defined what was really meant by it. He had heard a great many things called "Boycotting," some of which, as had been pointed out, were not defensible-at least, he did not undertake to defend them. He had heard of a farmer taking produce to market, and being unable to sell it, not because the buyers "Boycotted" him, but because rude people raised a crowd around him and drove away the intending pur chasers. That was an offence which would come under the general law of intimidation or riot, and there would be no difficulty in dealing with it. But if action in a case of this kind were taken in a totally different manner, if the buyers merely abstained from buying from the farmer, surely that could have been done without infringing any moral or legal obligation even under the measure now before the House. To give, as an illustration, a case which had come under his own observation in a town in a central part of Ireland, a person went into a grocer's shop, and asked the grocer to buy a load of turf, but a little girl came in and said, "This turf is Boycotted,'" giving a hint to the shopkeeper that, perhaps, it would be as well not to buy the load of turf on that occasion. There was no intimidation there, but an expression of opinion on the part of the child that it would be VOL. CCLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] better not to buy a load of turf at that time. It could not be said that this child was able to use any sort of intimidation against the shopkeeper, a man of mature years, and in very good circumstances. Would this case come under the Bill? Under the Act of 1875, it was possible to prosecute a person and punish him severely if he used any form of intimidation. Supposing, in the case he had quoted, instead of a little girl coming into the shop and saying, "This turf is 'Boycotted,"" a rough man had entered and said to the shopkeeper, "If you buy this man's turf, you will have your windows broken, or your trade taken from your shop, or some other punishment inflicted on you, the Act of 1875 would have operated, the offence of intimidation would have been committed, and, in all probability, the man would have been convicted in the ordinary course of law and punished. But it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that the Government were simply beating the wind. There was not the slightest use in bringing in a Bill of that kind to define a form of misconduct, which, if it were misconduct, was so hard of proof, and with regard to which it would be so easy to evade the law. An hon. Member had pointed out what was done in those cases which occurred in England and Ireland, and which closely approximated in character to "Boycotting." THE CHAIRMAN: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member; but I do not find that he is talking on the Amendment at all. MR. BIGGAR said, he was replying to the observations which had been made in the course of the debate, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had specifically stated that this question of what was called "Boycotting" was raised in the particular Amendment now before the Committee. He would take care that in the course of his observations he did not say anything that was out of Order, or anything that was not perfectly in reply to something which had been said by another speaker during these discussions, or that did not specially refer to the Amendment, or the words the Amendment referred to. to this intimidation, no doubt, according to the law that existed in England, a certain sort of exclusive dealing was perfectly legal. Supposing a particular [Sixth Night.] Q As MR. BIGGAR said, he certainly was referring to injury done to person or property. What he had been referring to had seemed to him to be a question of intimidation-such cruel and oppressive conduct on the part of a landlord to an unfortunate was surely one of the grossest forms of intimidation. A threat of eviction was surely intimidation, and eviction, when carried out, was surely one of the severest punishments that could be inflicted on a man. He submitted that he was in Order on the point, and not deserving of the Chairman's censure. However, he would not pursue the matter further, as he should probably have another opportunity of speaking. class of persons obtained a monopoly of a particular trade, that class must act impartially to everyone who went to them. Reference had been made to the publican. He was a person who was obliged to servea man who went into his house during legal hours and asked to be served, whether he liked that man or not. A Railway Company, again, were bound to give accommodation to a person who proposed to travel on their line. But, on the other hand, a person who simply hired out carts without a licence was not bound to lend his horse and vehicles, unless he felt disposed to do so, and unless he liked the person he had to deal with. And supposing a shopkeeper lived in the next house to the publican, he was not bound to do as MR. PARNELL said, he trusted the the publican had been obliged to do Government would consent to report with regard to the supply of goods, Progress. He understood the Prime but was perfectly at liberty to sell, Minister was anxious that a division or to refuse to sell, as he might feel should be taken on the Amendment bedisposed. And now he (Mr. Biggar) fore the Committee; but, in view of the would make some reference to the fact that they had had no intimation right hon. and learned Gentleman the from the Government that they intended Secretary of State for the Home De- to make a concession as to the definition partment. He had laid it down that of the offence of intimidation, and of the persons were not at liberty to inquire fact that a great many hon. Members whether a customer had paid his rent. who intended to vote on their (the Irish That was taking an extreme view as to Members') side had left the House, cases that should come under the cogni- under the impression that a division was zance of the Act. It proposed that per- not to be taken that evening, and also sons who, for trifling reasons, refused to in view of the fact that several Irish give a supply of food to other people Members desired to address the Comshould be liable to punishment; but, on mittee on the subject of the Amendment, the other hand, if the landlord had he did not see how they could agree to claimed an excessive and unreasonable | take the division until Thursday. At rent, and evicted his tenant, destroying the same time, he might say that there his means of living, he suffered no would be no desire on the part of the punishment under this clause. He (Mr. Irish Members to unnecessarily prolong Biggar) held that the Bill was one- the debate on Thursday. He begged to sided in its substance, would have no move that the Chairman report Prooperation, and was very mischievous, gress. for the reason that it would give the Irish people to understand that there was to be one law for the rich and another for the poor, one law for the landlords and another for the unfortunate tenant farmers. It even went farther than that, and said that persons were not to incite to intimidation THE CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out that the hon. Member is discussing just now all the details of the clause upon an Amendment that is specific. It is with reference to a person using intimidation or inciting others to use intimidation by acts or threats of violence or injury to person or property. Mr. Biggar Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that after what had been said by the Prime Minister, the Government could not consent to the Motion for reporting Progress. Hon. Members opposite, seeing that the hour was approaching when the debate must, of necessity, cease, had the matter in their own hands; but to consent to the Motion would be to admit that the Amendment had not been fully discussed, and probably there was not a man in the House who thought so. It was admitted that the Amendment before them could not be sustained; therefore it was obvious they ought to allow it to be disposed of. All that the Prime Minister would ask was that they should dispose of this Amendment, leaving over any others that would modify the clause. MR. CHARLES RUSSELL said, that as he proposed the Amendment, he should like to say a word with regard to it. He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) yesterday, and had heard a good deal of the debate to-day, and he confessed that the speeches which had been made did satisfy him that there were some cases of "Boycotting," which he might call extreme cases, unaccompanied by acts or threats of violence to person or property, which it might be perfectly proper And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress. Committee to sit again To-morrow. And it being Six of the clock, the House was adjourned without Question first put till To-morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 8th June, 1882. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingLocal Government Provisional Order (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) * (121); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [122]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [123]. Second Reading - Justices' Jurisdiction (112); Metropolis Management and Building Acts Report - Arklow Harbour* (98). (Amendment) * (104). JUSTICES' JURISDICTION BILL. (The Lord Bramwell.) (NO. 112.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Read to treat as criminal offences under the Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^." THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that, considering the great experience which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had had in trying the cases with which the Bill was intended to deal on Circuit, he could not hesitate to agree to the second reading of this Bill; but it was desirable that it should be considered by the Home Office, and therefore he hoped, if the Motion were agreed to, that a reasonably long interval would be allowed to elapse before the stage of Committee. LORD BRABOURNE said, he also hoped that some time would be given for considering the provisions of the Bill. He was sorry that the Bill was introduced when the noble Earl who represented the Home Office (the Earl of Rosebery) was not present, as it would be well that their Lordships should know what the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in regard to it. He was glad to find, from the introduction of this Bill, proposing, Q 2 |