HC Deb 10 April 1867 vol 186 cc1448-53

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. NEATE

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained, that in proposing this measure he had no intention of impugning the recent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, which if questioned at all ought to be appealed against in the House of Lords; but simply wished to restore to trade societies that right of summary process before a magistrate against a defaulting treasurer which prior to that judgment they practically enjoyed. The recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench had virtually taken away this power from trades union societies, and had placed them almost out of the pale of the law. Another effect of that judgment was, that the duty was thrown upon the magistrate of deciding upon the nature of any particular society that might appear before him, as to whether it was or was not of a political character—a duty which he believed that they were unwilling, and might in some cases be incompetent, to discharge. The right of combination for the purpose of reducing the hours of work or of raising the price of labour, was conferred upon workmen as far back as the year 1818; but the effect of the recent judgment would be, that any arrangement of this sort, however expressly it might exclude anything like the exercise of violence, might come within the principle laid down by the learned Judge, and thus drive the society from its legal status. He therefore felt that the Legislature was called upon to interfere for the purpose of remedying the inconveniences that attended the present position of these societies. The question was not whether trades unions were societies which deserved special encouragement, but whether they were of so pernicious a character that they ought to be excluded from advantages extended to harmless societies. With the economical character of trades unions the House had nothing to do; and if they were political bodies they were only slightly so. But were they not of use in preventing violence and the destruction of property? Some time ago a glowing account was published of the excellent relations existing between the Belgian workmen and their employers; but soon after that we heard of a very formidable outbreak on the part of some of those workmen. Even if there were no trades unions we could not prevent differences from arising between employers and the employed; and if the workmen had not an opportunity of constantly conferring together, their feelings might become aroused to a dangerous degree, and in case of a strike, having no funds to fall back upon, some of them might be tempted to have recourse to plunder and the destruction of property. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time as an admission of the difficulty which existed, and that Government would introduce a measure on the subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Neate.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to assent to the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press it. The objections he had to the Bill were founded on no reflections, upon trades unions, nor upon any considerations of a political nature; nor was it because he thought these societies were contrary to public policy:—he objected to the Bill because it proceeded on the unprecedented principle of asking the sanction of the Legislature to an existing and continuing violation of the law. This was not a case in which the hon. Member having charge of the Bill said the law was wrong, and asked to have it repealed. Neither did the hon. and learned Gentleman ask for a mere indemnity for past and completed errors. These would be two intelligible propositions. But admitting as he did, that the law had been violated—that the Courts of Law had declared the constitution of these societies to be illegal—the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that, without an alteration of the law which had been so violated, legislative sanction and encouragement should be given to all societies continuing in a like course of illegality. Such a proposition was so inconsistent with every idea of legislation that he was surprised it should have been brought before the House. By the Friendly Societies Act of 1854 it was enacted that certain facilities should be given to societies of that kind, provided certain rules were complied with, and provided those societies were established for purposes not illegal. It appeared that the treasurer of a certain trades union was in default; proceedings against him were taken before the magistrates, when the objection was taken that the society was illegal, and that therefore the magistrate could not exercise any jurisdiction. Ultimately the case was brought to the Queen's Bench, which Court decided that it could not give the society relief in any way against its defaulting treasurer. That decision was based, not on the fact that the society in question was a trades union, but on the fact that its rules were illegal, and consequently, that the society could not claim the benefit of the provision in the Friendly Societies Act. If this hon. and learned Friend objected to that decision, he could advise the society to go to the Court of Error. But, as he understood him, he did not object to it; neither did he ask House to repeal the law; but he said, "Let the law continue as it is; let those societies continue to be illegal; I ask no alteration of the law respecting them; I ask that they may continue in their violation of the law, but that while so continuing they may have all the privileges to which they would be entitled if they were acting in conformity to the law" Now, he submitted that such a preposition was self-contradictory. He could understand an application from his hon. and learned Friend to have the benefits of the Friendly Societies Act extended to such trades unions as altered their rules so as to make them legal, and to have the Bill granting such extension retrospective so far as to include the liability of treasurers of such unions for money paid into their hands before the rules had been altered; but the preposition now before the House was one to which the Government could not give their consent, and he had to repeat the expression of his hope that his hon. and learned Friend would not press it.

MR. THOMAS HUGHES

said, the remedy suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite impracticable. One of the objects of these societies was to assist their brethren when out of work, and to ask them to repeal the rules to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was simply asking them to extinguish themselves. He did not want to go into the question as to whether trades unions were good or whether they were bad. Those societies were in existence, and acting, as they believed, in such a manner as to give them the benefit of the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act. The members had for the last thirteen years been paying in sums of money to their treasurers, which sums, in consequence of the decision of Queen's Bench, were completely jeopardized. He knew a good deal of the circumstances connected with the framing of that 44th section. At the time it was under consideration persons interested in trades unions got the highest opinion that their rules were legal. No doubt, the very eminent gentleman who gave the opinion meant that the rules were not illegal in a sense which would render the members of the unions liable to a criminal prosecution; but the persons who consulted him understood the opinion to be that the rules were legal in the sense that would entitle the unions to the benefits of the provision in the 44th clause of the Friendly Societies Act, and, accordingly, they deposited their rules with the Registrar of the Friendly Societies in order that their unions might be brought under the Act. In point of fact, these societies thought that their rules had been sanctioned by a Government officer; and he might remark that three years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), after careful consideration of the subject, allowed societies registered under the 44th clause to deposit their surplus funds in the Government savings banks. The number of these societies was forty-four. One of them had upwards of 33,000 members and a spare capital of £150,000; and branches of it were established not only in the large towns of the United Kingdom, but also in the United States and the colonies. Then there was the Society of Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners, with upwards of 200 branches and a fund of between £14,000 and £15,000. The funds of these societies were in the hands of their officers in every part of the country, who, unless some such measure as the present were carried, might pocket the money with impunity, as it had been decided that, as the law now stood, the societies had no remedy whatever. Now, what would be the effect produced on the minds of the members of these societies if they were left entirely without remedy—if they had no means of protecting their funds against frauds on the part of their officers? The effect of throwing out the Bill would be the exciting a sense of injustice in the minds of all the members of these societies, and which would make them very discontented, whereas at present they were all loyal and well-affected citizens.

MR. POWELL

thought that while the Commission was pursuing its inquiries the House ought to preserve a strict silence on the subject of these societies. There had been nothing in the action of Parliament during the last fifteen years which could be regarded as a recognition of those societies, and the House could not be held responsible for any misconstruction of the law under which they had acted. If the wide question of illegality were dealt with on the ground of restraint of trade their legislation would have to embrace not only trades unions but also masters. But though he had objections to the Bill, he did not wish it to be inferred that he was averse to some alteration of the law. Considering the number of men and the amount of capital in these societies he thought that their case ought to be considered by Parliament in a fair and friendly spirit. He thought it would be better if the present Bill were withdrawn and a special measure brought in.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, that if he were a party man he should be enchanted at the course taken by the Government on this subject; since what they were now doing took away all the grace from the concession they had made in granting an inquiry into the subject of trades unions. As far as mere words went, nothing could sound fairer than to say to the unions—Set yourselves right before the law, and we will then see what can be done for you. But, what was the fact? The law which they were said to have violated was a mine sprung under them. No one dreamt of it until the recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Under the power which our law allowed the Judges to assume, of declaring that whatever was in restraint of trade was illegal, anything might be made law; but when a law was made in this way, it was to all intents and purposes a new law. As the law which these societies were said to have violated was a law of which they and everybody else had been entirely ignorant, the only rational course was to preserve the status quo until the whole subject had been reconsidered, which would only be done by legalizing provisionally the course which the societies had pursued, and allowing them to continue in that course until a final settlement was come to. It was a highly demoralizing practice to attempt to prevent people from doing what it was desired they should not do, not by punishing them, but by enabling any scoundrel to plunder them—by granting him complete immunity for acts which in any other case would be severely punished. The Legislature should not employ the vices of mankind, but their virtues, to carry out its intentions. It would have been infinitely better for these societies to have punished their officers criminally, than to put the societies themselves out of the protection of the law.

MR. BARROW

said, that trades unions had been sailing under false colours, and had called themselves friendly societies, when, in fact, they were political associations. The Judges had declared that their rules were contrary to law; and now the House was asked to restore rights which never existed; for the object of the Bill was to enable societies to recover from their officers monies levied for illegal purposes. It would be better, in his opinion, that the Bill should be withdrawn.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till To-morrow.

House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.