HL Deb 02 August 1869 vol 198 cc1068-76

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."

LORD CAIRNS

said, there appeared to be a misapprehension as to the object of the Bill. He understood from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night that this Bill had been brought in, because there had been certain decisions given by the courts of law under which, by reason of some technical illegality on the part of trades unions, the executive bodies of those trades unions were unable to proceed against and convict persons who had been guilty of embezzlement of their funds. He (Lord Cairns) had endeavoured to ascertain the particulars of those decisions, and he thought the noble and learned Lord had been misinformed. What he understood the courts to have decided was that where trades unions, by reason of the illegality in their rules, being in restraint of trade, were not able to register themselves as friendly societies, they could not have the benefit of that summary proceeding against their officers which friendly societies by law enjoyed. There was no difficulty in trades unions benefit societies proceeding against their officers for embezzlement, any more than other benefit societies, and it was only when their rules were in restraint of trade that they were prevented from doing so; and it had not been decided that trades unions were not entitled to the full benefit of the Act passed last Session, which enabled all societies of any kind to proceed against their officers for embezzlement of their funds. It was a very unusual kind of legislation to introduce a Bill which was to last only for one year in the face of the Report of the Commissioners on Trades Unions, whoso recommendations went to this effect— that trades unions might be registered as friendly societies, provided they complied with certain conditions. It was a very unusual kind of legislation to authorize trades unions to register themselves for the purpose of recovering from their officers. There was no difficulty in trades unions recovering from their officers for embezzlement under the Act of last Session.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he did not think his noble and learned Friend would say that an illegal society could recover by virtue of the Act of last Session. It was held by the majority of the Judges that a trades union whose rules were in restraint of trade, and therefore illegal, could not be registered under the Friendly Societies Act. The Act of last Session could not improve that state of things in any way, and great anxiety was therefore felt in regard to this Bill, which had been brought in for a temporary purpose, while a general measure was under consideration.

LORD CAIRNS

observed that the Act of last Session said that no person should be acquitted of a charge of embezzlement, on the ground that he was a partner along with those whose money had been taken. The illegality of those trades unions had nothing whatever to do with that. The Commissioners reported— That the registration of trades unions might be effected through the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and it would be his duty to see that the rules and by-laws of a society claiming to be registered were unobjectionable—that is, not intended to promote those objects which we now proceed to specify as justifying, in our opinion, the refusal of registration— 1. To prevent the employment or to limit the number of apprentices. 2. To prevent the introduction, or to limit the use of machinery in any trade or manufacture. 3. To prevent any workman from taking a sub-contract or working by the piece, or working in common with men not members of the union. 4. To authorize interference, in the way of support from the funds of the union, by the council or governing body of the union, with the workmen of any other union when out on strike, or when otherwise engaged in any dispute with their employer, in any case in which such other union is an unconnected union. In the face of that Report they were, by this Bill, going to allow to be registered as friendly societies those trades unions who might infringe every one of those four articles which he had just read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought his noble and learned Friend would not say that on an indictment being laid the property embezzled must not be described as the property of somebody; and it could not be set out as being the property of an illegal society.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) said the Bill flew in the face of the Report of the Commissioners. Now, at page 20 of their Report, paragraph 59, the Commissioners said— It may be assumed, therefore, that the trades unions, with very few exceptions, have, by their rules and proceedings, placed their funds more or less beyond the protection of the law; and they are not altogether relieved either by the Act (31 & 32 Vict., c. 116) giving remedies to associations in cases of larceny by members thereof, or by the section in the Friendly Societies Act applicable to trade societies (18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, sec. 44) since that section applies only to societies established for ' any purpose which is not illegal.' This is a state of things which we think ought not to be allowed to continue; and we are brought therefore to the consideration of that part of your Majesty's Commission which directs us to suggest any improvements to be made in the law with respect to trades unions. Therefore the majority of the Commissioners were distinctly of opinion that the state of things by which the funds of trades unions are very imperfectly protected by law should not be allowed to continue. It seemed to him that the Act of last year did not meet the case of the trades unions thoroughly. That Act had two objects. First, it repealed the doctrine of common law by which co-partners were not liable to be sued in case of the embezzlement of the property of the partnership. In the next place it extended to the crime of embezzlement the provisions of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, which authorized summary prosecutions in cases of larceny and other offences. But those offences could be brought before justices of the peace in a summary way only if the defendants consented, and if the defendants objected the proceeding must be by indictment; and that being so trades unions were placed at a disadvantage. The object of the present Bill was to enable trades unions to have the same advantages as friendly societies in regard to proceeding in a summary way in cases of embezzlement or misappropriation of their funds by any of their officers. But another important point not touched by the Bill of last year was that trades unions could not recover their property in the shape of books, papers, or other documents. The present Bill would provide a remedy for that evil. He desired also to point out to their Lordships that by this Bill no sort of civil status was given to trades unions. It gave no advantages to any association for criminal purposes, nor, indeed, to any society whatever for illegal purposes, except it be in restraint of trade; but he ventured to submit that "restraint of trade" was a somewhat ambiguous term, and that there was great difference of opinion in the country as to what was "restraint of trade "and what was not. He ventured to submit that the law on this subject was at present anything but clear and precise. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would assent to this Bill, seing that it had passed the House of Commons without any opposition whatever, and almost without discussion. If their Lordships were to pass this Bill they would be conferring great advantages on trades unions, without in any way touching those controverted questions to which the Commission had referred.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the noble Lord had read a passage from the Report which pointed out certain difficulties in the way of trades unions recovering as against their officers; but the Report went on further to say that it would be the duty of the Registrar of Friendly Societies "to see that the rules and bylaws of a society claiming to be registered were unobjectionable"—that is, not intended to promote certain specified objects. By allowing, therefore, trades unions to be registered as friendly societies they would be able to recover as against their officers, provided they did not infringe any of the four cardinal points which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, would make such societies absolutely and radically illegal.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

said, he desired to call attention to some remarks of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) on the second reading, because they had led to some misapprehension. as to the views of the Commissioners, and he believed also as to the objects of the Government in introducing the Bill—though he had no communication with them on the subject. The remarks to which he referred were that the provisions of this Bill were not framed in accordance with the views of the Commissioners, and that the Bill had been introduced by the Government | with the object of recognizing in some way those trades unions as friendly societies. These were two very important points, and he wished to call attention to an opinion which he held very strongly, that the provisions of this Bill were not at variance with the Report of the Commissioners. But first he would ask their Lordships' attention to the position of these societies, and why it was that they asked for the protection it was proposed to give them by this Bill. To obtain a correct notion of that position it was necessary to refer to certain decisions in our courts of law. In the year 1867, the case of "Hornby v. Close" was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench, and that decision was that the society, which was then prosecuting an. officer for embezzling its funds, had no grounds for proceeding in consequence of its being an illegal society, through one of its rules prohibiting piece-work. The next ease, that of "Farrar v. Close," was in 1868. In that case the Court of Queen's Bench decided that, although there was a rule providing for the support of members out of employment, that rule did not operate necessarily in restraint of trade; and, therefore, as the case was brought before the court, the society would have had ground for proceeding against its officer. But the case having been referred from the justices at Bradford, the Court of Queen's Bench intimated that possibly evidence might be adduced to show that this rule did operate in restraint of trade. The case was then remitted to the magistrates, and evidence was taken, from which it appeared that this rule had been made to operate in restraint of trade, by encouraging and promoting strikes. The case then came back before the Court of Queen's Bench, and the judgment of the magistrates was confirmed. Now, when this case came back before the Court of Queen's Bench it was clearly decided that a society subscribing funds for the support of strikes, and thus having a rule operating in restraint of trade, was thereby an illegal society. Now, upon this subject he must call attention to the views and recommendations of the Commissioners as contained in their Report. And here he must remind their Lordships that he was not one of those who signed the Report—that is to say, the Report of the majority. He wished to observe, however, that in the Report of the majority of the Commissioners were to be found views which, in his opinion, were in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. He would first call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to page 20, paragraph 60. in which it was said— With regard to the general question of the light of workmen to combine together for determining and stipulating with their employer the terms on which only they will consent to work for him, we think that, provided the combination be perfectly voluntary, and that full liberty be left to all other workmen to undertake the work which the parties combining have refused, and that no obstruction be placed in the way of the employer resorting elsewhere in search of a supply of labour, there is no ground of justice or of policy for withholding such a right from the workmen. It cannot be doubted that a demand, backed by the resolution of a large body of workmen to decline work if the demand be not acceded to, cornea with more force than that of an isolated workman; and we think that the workmen may reasonably claim to be allowed any advantage which they can derive from such concerted action in bargaining with their employer from time to time as to the terms on which they will dispose of their labour. These were the views of the Commissioners as to the right to combine. Then, if their Lordships turned to page 22, paragraph 73, they would find what the Commissioners' recommendations were— With regard to the general question of the right of combination, we are prepared to recommend, in accordance with the principles above stated, that a Bill be brought in, so far relaxing the existing law as in substance to enact that no combination of persons for the purpose of determining among themselves, or of stipulating for, the terms on which they will consent to employ or be employed, shall be unlawful by reason only that its operation would be in restraint of trade. Now, that was a direct recommendation by the Commissioners of some such Bill as was now before their Lordships. If their Lordships turned to page 24, paragraph 78, they would find that the Commissioners said— With regard to existing trades unions, we think that, subject to certain conditions, to be presently stated, they should be relieved from their present anomalous position. And in paragraph 79 they said— We notice also that societies have now facilities to apply the law against larceny and embezzlement to offences by their officers and other members coming within the recent ' Act to amend the Law relating to Larceny and Embezzlement, 31 and 32 Victoria, c. 116.' But, although some progress has thus been made towards security for the rights of members of unions, there would be advantage to the unions if they were established with the capacities, rights, and liabilities arising from a status recognized by law; and there would be advantage to the public if their proceedings were made public, and the officers of unions acting according to law had the position to which persons discharging important duties are entitled. He entirely agreed with the last half of that paragraph, and it was because he held that view that he dissented from the conditions laid down by the Commissioners, as conditions without compliance with which no society ought to obtain the protection of the law for its funds. There were only four conditions laid down by the Commissioners, and that principle upon which the last decision of the courts was based—namely, that a society was illegal which subscribed funds in support of strikes—was not one of them. Of the four objects deemed objectionable by the Commissioners, and as justifying in their opinion the refusal of registration, the fourth and most important—relating to the support by unions, in cases of strike, of men belonging to other and unconnected unions—was not thought objectionable by two of the Commissioners, who entered a dissent upon this point at the end of the Report. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, were not at variance with the opinions or recommendations of the Commissioners. He (the Earl of Lichfield) appreciated the difficulties of the Government in their endeavours to define what should make a society illegal, and pronounced the four conditions quoted by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) inconsistent with paragraph 73 of the Report, in which the Commissioners say that societies should not be held illegal on account only of any rule operating in restraint of trade. He felt it would be also inconsistent to declare illegal societies having rules to limit apprenticeship or to prohibit piecework, when other societies recognized as legal had rules quite as unsound upon economical grounds. The noble and learned Lord had hinted the other night that this Bill was designed to recognize trades union societies by a side wind, and in that way to give them all the advantages of the Friendly Societies Act. If that were so, he would be the first to oppose it— and, moreover, the Bill would have been opposed by the trades unions themselves. The Bill simply gave trades unions the advantages conferred on friendly societies by the 44th clause of the Friendly Societies Act — that summary mode of procedure in cases of fraud so necessary to such associations. Having given much consideration to the matter, he was extremely grateful to the Government for having introduced a measure calculated to do away with what he felt to be a great injustice; for trades unions were, after all, simply associations of persons combined together for the purpose of promoting their own interests— the uniform object of most associations. Why, therefore, should these trade societies be deprived of the legal protection to their property which every other person in the country possessed? He confessed he could not understand upon what ground of expediency or policy their Lordships could refuse such an equitable demand, so long as those societies conducted their affairs in a manner unstained by anything criminal. If their Lordships believed those societies to be criminal or manifestly illegal, they ought not to rest satisfied with punishing them by simply withholding from them that legal protection which all other societies possessed; but they ought to go much further, and boldly declare that such societies should be altogether prohibited. He trusted their Lordships would assent to the Bill.

LORD PENZANCE

thought the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) took an extravagant view of the case. The Bill simply proposed to confer upon trades unions for one year—during which a more efficient measure might be matured—the same legal means of protecting their funds from fraud and embezzlement as was enjoyed by friendly societies. The noble and learned Lord opposite said they had the power to protect their funds from fraud already under the statute of last year. Without inquiring whether this was so or not, he (Lord Penzance) wished simply to point out that the only object of this Bill was to give them a more efficient and ready means of access to that power —such means as the law already gave to friendly societies. It might be a question whether it should be pronounced unwise and unjust to say trades unions should not recover in cases of fraud; but surely it would be still more unwise if, having that power, the Legislature should refuse to give them a ready means of availing themselves of the remedies the law gave them. Looking at the limited time the law would operate, and the limited nature of its provisions, he could not conceive what objection could be raised to, it even from the standpoint of his noble and learned Friend opposite.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.