§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury into what questions it is intended that the Commission on Trade Disputes is to inquire, and whether it is to be limited to the matters dealt with in the Trade Disputes Bill rejected on Friday last, or to include that of the legal liability of the funds of trade unions involved in the first Taff Vale judgment.
§ grant the Return, Electoral Divisions (Ireland), on to-day's Notice Paper.
§ The Return referred to is as follows:—
§ MR. BELL (Derby)I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when he will proceed with the appointment of the Royal Commission to inquire into the present position of trades unions under the existing laws and the various judgments of the Courts; and whether he can state the number and composition of such Commission, and what he proposes to refer to them.
§ SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester)I beg further to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Commission of inquiry into suggested amendments of the law in trade disputes will be appointed, and the terms of its reference.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it is proposed to issue this Commission—will it be within two or three weeks or, at any rate some time before the end of the session?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I desire to get on with this matter as quickly as I 701 can; but Members of the House who have had any experience of the appointment of Royal Commissions are well aware that it is not an easy matter to get together a Commission which would prove satisfactory to all parties interested in an answer to the three Questions which are down upon the Paper.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEIs it the intention of the Government that the Commission shall be what is called an impartial Commission, consisting of persons unconnected with the questions in dispute—a Commission of a somewhat judicial nature—or a Commission which will represent employers and employed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI confess I have a personal preference for the first kind of Commission when one can be appointed, but the difficulties are almost insuperable in this case. Probably the more ordinary course will be followed of endeavouring to have an adequate representation of, I do not say any violent partisanship, but of persons thoroughly cognisant of, and interested in, the various competing views, who, I hope, might not find it impossible to come to something in the nature of a unanimous conclusion.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEWill the questions raised by the Taff Vale judgment come before the Commission?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should doubt whether any Commission would be satisfactory from the purview of which that question was deliberately excluded.
§ MR. BELLCan the right hon. Gentleman give us any encouragement to hope that the appointment of the Commission is in the near future?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should certainly hope so.
§ SIR JOHN ROLLESTONIs it likely to be appointed soon enough to ensure that legislation shall be possible early in the ensuing session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is a very difficult question, which it is impossible to answer with certainty. It is difficult even to give a conjectural answer to 702 it. I do not know whether the Commission might think it necessary to take a great mass of evidence. I should rather hope not; but that must be, after all, left to their discretion. If a Royal Commission is appointed it is impossible for the Government to control their arrangements.