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

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 anything 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)
BILL-[BILL 273.]

(Mr. Raikes, The Lord Advocate, Mr.
Secretary Cross.)

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.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. MAITLAND considered he 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

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.' (Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, it was not right that objection should now be made to proceeding with the Bill, when there had been no objection to its being placed upon the Paper for that day. It was not owing to any fault of his that the Bill had not come in at an earlier period of the Session. He would, however, consent to adjourn the debate, if the hon. Baronet opposite would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MR. CHARLEY said, that Private Members' Business had been postponed to make way for Government Business as was usual on Saturdays, and it was only fair that they should have the fagend of what was usually a Government sitting for the discussion of their measures. His Bill-the Offences against the Person Bill-had been waiting for six weeks for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and he hoped they would be considered now.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a reasonable one. What the hon. Baronet said was very fair; Saturday was not ordinarily accessible to Government Business, and it was not desirable to take Business that would lead to much contest; on the other hand, the Private Members had been very good to the Government, and he thought that the pre

MR. MONK said, he was never more astounded in his life than at the statement just made by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The Bill of which he had charge met with only a negative support from the Government in the Upper House.

MR. JACKSON said, an adjournment of the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch until Monday would be fruitless, for the Bill would be just as distasteful then as now, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that a measure of the kind should be passed by a private Member.

MR. ONSLOW supported the Bill, and urged that it should be proceeded with that evening.

MR. HAYTER said, he had pursued a legitimate course in opposing the Bill. He protested against controversial measures brought in by private Members being discussed on days appointed for Government Business at the end of the Session.

withdrawing the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and, the other Bills being adjourned until Monday, that they should at least take the adjourned debate on the consideration of the Lords'

Amendments to the Offences Against the

Person Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he hoped, if the other Bills were adjourned, that his Bill, the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, should be put in such a position on the Paper for Monday as to ensure its being brought on at an early part of the evening. A Bill of the importance of the Increase to the Episcopate Bill demanded the serious consideration of the House. It was one which had gone through all its stages in the

CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

Order for consideration of Lords' Amendments read.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock till Monday.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, it was not right that objection should now be made to proceeding with the Bill, when there had been no objection to its being placed upon the Paper for that day. It was not owing to any fault of his that the Bill had not come in at an earlier period of the Session. He would, however, consent to adjourn the debate, if the hon. Baronet opposite would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MR. CHARLEY said, that Private Members' Business had been postponed to make way for Government Business as was usual on Saturdays, and it was only fair that they should have the fagend of what was usually a Government sitting for the discussion of their measures. His Bill-the Offences against the Person Bill-had been waiting for six weeks for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and he hoped they would be considered now.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a reasonable one. What the hon.

Baronet said was very fair; Saturday was not ordinarily accessible to Government Business, and it was not desirable to take Business that would lead to much contest; on the other hand, the Private Members had been very good to the Government, and he thought that the pre

MR. MONK said, he was never more astounded in his life than at the statement just made by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The Bill of which he had charge met with only a negative support from the Government in the Upper House.

MR. JACKSON said, an adjournment of the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch until Monday would be fruitless, for the Bill would be just as distasteful then as now, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that a measure of the kind should be passed by a private Member.

MR. ONSLOW supported the Bill, and urged that it should be proceeded with that evening.

MR. HAYTER said, he had pursued a legitimate course in opposing the Bill. He protested against controversial measures brought in by private Members being discussed on days appointed for Government Business at the end of the Session.

CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

bate on the consideration of the Lords'

Amendments to the Offences Against the

Person Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he hoped, if the other Bills were adjourned, that his Bill, the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, should be put in such a position on the Paper for Monday as to ensure its being brought on at an early part of the evening. A Bill of the importance of the Increase to the Episcopate Bill demanded the serious consideration of the House. It was one which had gone through all its stages in the

Order for consideration of Lords' Amendments read.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock till Monday.