§ Section four of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, shall not apply to any action in respect of any tortious act committed in furtherance of any political object. Provided that execution upon any judgment or order obtained by the plaintiff in any such action against any trade union shall only extend to the political fund of the union.
1093§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This Clause raises the question of the conditions under which the political activities which the Bill permits to trade unions shall be carried on. The Bill permits what is in law a new category of activities to trade unions. I am fully alive to the view held by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite and a great many people in the country down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, that political activity was a matter which, in the nature of things, under the old Trades Union Acts, was permissible to trade unions. I do not in any way wish to raise any controversy relating to that question. I accept the historical fact that trade unions did, to a great extent, carry on political activities in a growing degree down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, particularly during the years that preceded the Osborne Judgment, but the fact remains that the basis of the Osborne Judgment was that the constitution of trade unions as contained in the Trade Unions Acts was one which excluded political activity. That being so, it raises questions of historical importance and of present importance. I for one am strongly in favour of trade unions being given the power of carrying on political action. In spite of much that has been said by various Members, particularly of the party below the Gangway opposite, and in various periodicals and papers, I believe that the great majority of those who sit on these benches are also in favour of trade unions having political activity. We are all anxious that the working classes should be adequately represented in this House. There is one reason which seems to me to be paramount on that question, namely, that the solution of industrial difficulties, the solution of the great question of industrial unrest which has been so much before us recently, must lie more and more as years go on in the action of Parliament. If that be so, it stands to reason that in order that such solution should be satisfactory, we should have a real sanction given to legislation by the presence of representatives of the whole of the industrial classes concerned in that legislation.
While conceding that main proposition, I submit that it is only right that when the new activity is conferred upon these great and powerful bodies, that power should be conferred subject to the ordinary conditions upon which this Parliament is 1094 in the habit of conferring new powers on any bodies which it creates. There is no precedent in our legislation for the conferring of statutory powers on any statutory body which does not attach to those powers what I may call the common, ordinary condition, that if the powers are misused some legal liability may attach. I observe on the Government Bench the powers, so to speak, of law and order—the Law Officers and the Home Secretary. Can they give this House any justification in common sense for giving new powers, and at the same time saying to the repository of those powers, "Do what you like, misbehave as you will, do as much injury as you choose, you may do it with complete immunity"? I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not for one moment suggest that I have any ground for saying that any of the great bodies in this country which are trade unions to-day will misuse the political powers conferred upon them. When a railway company or a corporation comes to Parliament for statutory powers, does that company or corporation resent it if it is said, "You shall have your powers, but upon the ordinary conditions which attach to every company and to every corporation that is known in this country, namely, that if you do wrong you shall be responsible for the wrong you do"? I venture to make a twofold appeal, on the one hand to the Government, and, on the other hand, to the Labour party. I submit to the Government that here is a proposition which is self-evident. If you give new powers you attach to those powers an adequate sanction to their abuse. I appeal to the Labour party—it is an appeal which in their heart of hearts they cannot but recognise as right and just—I say that I believe that the trade unions of this country have been a great and potent power for good. I believe that is a mission which they will continue to carry out. But the great success of that mission must, in the ultimate resort, depend on the degree in which they retain a firm hold upon the confidence of the public of this country. The complete confidence of the public of this country can only be retained if they convince the public of their complete responsibility for all that they do. Take this case of political activity. There is a choice before them. They may go to the country and say, "We have been given these new political powers, but we have been given them under terms of complete irresponsibility. We can, if we choose 1095 in the course of an election, libel a candidate in our trade union paper, and we shall be perfectly immune from all results, however much damage it may do," or they can go to the country and say, "We have asked for these political powers, but as evidence of our good faith, as evidence of the responsible character of the policy which we promote, you see we accept in regard to these new powers liability and responsibility before the law of the land in case we should do wrong." That is to the people of the country an appeal which will not only meet with general approbation at the present time, but one which will inure to the permanent advantage of the trade union movement which I am so anxious to support. The language of the Clause is simply and solely that of the Trades Disputes Act, an Act passed in the first instance to deal with liability incurred in respect of trade disputes. I recognise fully the claims of the trade unions at that time to be free from liability in respect of the acts of some of their servants. But I wish to call the particular attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to the limited character of the liability, which I suggest is appropriate. As we are dealing in this Bill not with the wider subject, but only with the question of political activity, it is right that the only funds which should be made liable should be the political funds collected under the Bill. I urge upon the Government and upon the Labour party to accept this Clause.
§ Mr. HILLSI beg to second the Motion. I would say respectfully to the Labour Party they must recognise that power brings responsibility. Under this Bill they are asking, and I suppose they will obtain, very large new powers. Those powers are conditioned by the responsibility which they have to exercise, and unless that responsibility is accepted, you will at some time lose the powers, for unless you can convince the people of this country that you are asking for a fair extension of your powers, in the long run I by some way or another, you will lose those powers. All this Clause asks is that where a trade union outside its ordinary trade activities, in the course of a political action should, in its corporate capacity, commit a libel, the political funds of that trade union should be responsible for that libel. The Clause makes a very clear distinction between the general funds of the trade union and the political funds of the 1096 trade union, and between the general activities of the trade union, which under the Trades Disputes Act is legalised in all respects, and whereby the trade union is immune from all action of contract or tort and its political activities. I ask any fair-minded man in the House, does he think it is right to use the machinery of the Trades Disputes Act to extend the area of that dispute into the political arena? I am certain no one wants that. I do not for a moment accuse the trade union world of wishing to libel, damage, and perhaps ruin thereby, their political opponents, but these things may happen. If they happen, ought not the trade union which commits the libel to suffer in its political funds? I should very much like to know the answer to that. This Clause is absolutely limited. There is no liability for tort imposed on the ordinary benefit fund or on the general funds of the trade union. But now it is going into political life. I think inevitably, and I am sure rightly, when it goes it must go as any other body goes. It must go with full responsibility upon it, and I hope this Clause, which is consonant with ordinary justice, will be accepted by the general sense of the House.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe question which is raised by this Clause is undoubtedly one of some importance. I think, in order to understand it, it is necessary to retrace our steps a little, and to follow what happened on the passing of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. I note in passing, with satisfaction, that the hon. Gentleman avows himself a friend and supporter of trade unions, and that he has no fault to find against the actions of the trade unions, speaking generally. So far, of course, we are in complete accord. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves out of account altogether is that when the Trades Disputes Act was passed, as it was, by the common consent of this House, there was no Division on the Third Reading—
§ Lord HUGH CECILThis particular consequence was unforeseen.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am coming to that. At that time the whole matter was elaborately discussed. I am sure no one who remembers the passage of the Act through the House will suggest that it was not considered in all its bearings. At that moment it is well that the House should remember that it was thought by all lawyers—certainly by the vast majority 1097 of lawyers—that trade unions were entitled to indulge in the political activities. At that time the Osborne trial had not commenced. It was not in contemplation that there would be such an action, and what we were discussing then was whether the funds of trade unions should be granted immunity against the consequences of tortious acts committed by trade union officers or agents. This House passed Clause 4, in which it was made clear that the funds of the union were never to be made responsible, and I think in this respect there is an enormous amount of exaggeration as to the effect of that Clause. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) fell into the error. He is too good a lawyer for that, but he certainly did not point out that all that is done by the Trades Disputes Act, and all that will happen if we do not pass the Clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proposing, is that the funds of the union itself will be exempt. But it is quite a fallacy to argue from that, as is very often done—I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman said it—that individuals are not responsible for their acts.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI know the hon. and learned Gentleman does, but there are many who do not. There are many who are not as well aware of the state of the law as he is, and I am stating this for the information, not of those who are lawyers, but for the purpose of clearing the ground, and making it perfectly clear to those who say, "You are giving an immunity and a privileged position to members of unions—it is something unheard of—for all their actions." All I say is that individuals are responsible for the acts they commit. Whether a man is an official or otherwise acting as an agent for a trade union, or acting with the authority of a trade union, the act he commits is an act for which he is responsible. The civil law remains unaltered in that respect, and to the criminal law every man is amenable. It is erroneous to say that an action will lie against an individual which will make the funds of the union responsible. It is an exaggeration to speak, as some hon. Members do, and certainly as some people do outside, of Members of trade unions being able to do what they like, and no evil consequences will arise. What is the reason the House granted this immunity to trade unions in 1906? [An HON. MEMBER: "There was a division on the 1098 Clause."] When the Bill came to the Third Reading it was passed without any division at all. The reason why this House granted the immunity was because it realised how impossible was the situation created by making trade union funds responsible in cases where it was impossible to limit agency as applied to trade unions. Exactly the same reasoning applies to the particular funds we are dealing with in this case. In the discussions on the 1906 Bill it was argued that political libel might be perpetrated by a number of trade unionists, and that the trade union should be made responsible for it. I fail to understand myself why you should draw a distinction between a political libel and another libel.
§ Viscount WOLMERThis Bill deals with politics.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think it is right to make some provision to remedy the difficulty under the Osborne Judgment.
§ Viscount WOLMERI do not think it would be in order to deal with a subject which is beyond civil action.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAm I to understand that if it was in order what would be proposed would be the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act? All that I am pointing out with reference to the matter is that if you allow the Trade Disputes Act to stand, I do not see the reason why you should draw a distinction between political libel and any other libel. I understand the point if you say in argument that Parliament was wrong when it passed the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. If that is the argument, I follow it. I understand the Noble Lord to say that it would be out of Order in this Bill to deal with the subject. If that is so, I come back to the position that there is no reason why there should be a, distinction drawn between one class of tort and another. The distinction was not drawn in the discussions on the Bill in 1906, and so far as I understand it, the law is even stronger in restraining political libel, and would apply with greater force than in any other form of libel. Suppose there is an election and some libellous sheet is issued, you can proceed by asking an order of the Court to restrain at once the publication of the libel. That is the remedy which would be taken. You might proceed against the printer or the individual responsible. You could do all that, but the only thing you cannot do by this is to proceed against a trade union. All the rest is 1099 open to you. You would have an opportunity of preventing the repetition of the libellous statement by that means.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it is the law to-day, under Section 4 of the Trades Disputes Act, that an action is entertainable to stop the doing of a wrong, in spite of the fact that no action lies for damages.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman followed what I was saying. What I said was, that although you could not proceed against the trade union, you could proceed by injunction against the printer, publisher, or individual, who may be responsible. I purposely drew that distinction.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTI did not follow that.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAssume for a moment that you have this state of affairs—assume that there is a libel published by a trade union. There is no more reason why a trade union should publish a libel I suppose than any other association. The difficulty with regard to a trade union is not entirely confined to them. Suppose for example a tariff reform union or a free trade union, or a Liberal or a Conservative association, were concerned, what would happen would be that any competent lawyer would advise the person who was libelled to proceed at once against the printers or publishers or persons who could be made responsible. He would find a difficulty in pursuing the association. The association is not even an entity as the union is declared to be by the Taff Vale judgment. It is nothing else but en association. There are difficulties of all kinds. I dare say there might be some means of meeting it. If you can find out the individual you can obtain redress against him, but really what you want in all these things at election times is, not so much to get damages as to get an injunction, and then you can proceed to get damages if you think fit against the responsible people. I do think that the House should bear in mind what the position was in 1906.
At that time, I will not put it so high as to say all, for there may have been some exceptions—but the vast majority thought, as they have thought for many years, that trade unions we're entitled to do what they were doing before the Osborne Judgment had been thought of, and in 1100 spite of all that no such Clause as is now suggested was introduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman's very moderate demand is to confine this execution against political funds. It is difficult to see why we should. Political funds equally are funds obtained from members who are willing to contribute, and who do not claim exemption, and they are in exactly the same position as other moneys levied either for the purposes of the war chest, to give strike pay, or for any other purpose. Exactly the same consideration applies. You have got this money paid into a certain fund. It makes no difference if you call it a political fund. The only reason we draw the distinction in this Bill is because it is thought right, inasmuch as all members are not bound to contribute, but those who desire can claim exemption, to keep the fund separate from the general one, and as the Bill applies to all the members of the trade union, it was desired that the money should not get mixed up in any way. My submission to the House is that there is really no ground for this distinction, and that exactly the same principle which applied in 1906 should apply now.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONI wish to associate myself with the speeches made by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this new Clause. It is a fact, which I think hon. Members below the Gangway know, that the Conservative party, the Unionist party, are not averse to trade unions. On the contrary, I could quote, if necessary, many admissions that the original charter of trade unions, which they prized enormously, proceeded from the Unionist party, and I should like to say, as a matter of very much less importance, that I myself both have written and spoken in this House on the occasions when I thought that trade unions were not receiving entirely fair play. The Attorney-General would perhaps remember the occasion when there seemed to be a certain conflict with principles of justice, between the decisions which had been arrived at in what was called the Mogul case and another case, and in these cases I supported such amendments of the law as were then required in my opinion, giving trade unions similar rights of combination as those which I conceived were enjoyed by the employers. Therefore I claim, for what it is worth, that both the party to which I belong and myself, individually, speak without any desire to injure trade unions.
1101 I heartily agree with what was said by my hon. Friends that trade unions have done a great deal of good in this country, and I also believe that under proper conditions the country and this House get an advantage from their extending activities, which were originally merely industrial, into the arena of politics. But it is an amazingly different proposition to say that the immunities which they received, and received advisedly, from this House, and avowedly simply, because there was a desire to make them operate on equal terms with the employers in trade disputes, those immunities which many men thought most dangerous and most extreme, should be projected from the field of trade disputes into the arena of politics. I do not think that what the Attorney-General has said with reference to the history of this subject is in the least relevant, but he is utterly wrong, as reference to the Bill will show, in supposing that this House was anything like unanimous in the passing of this particular Clause in that Bill. On the contrary, if he stretches his memory back he will find that my distinguished friend and his predecessor, Sir Lawson Walton, only the year before this passed, warned the Government in the gravest and most emphatic terms of the danger of having one law for trade unionism and one for individuals. The Attorney-General used the word "unanimously" several times. I say that this House was not unanimous. It divided against the Clause, and his own predecessor was dead against it, and so were the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. The Attorney-General goes on to talk of civil equality, and it was amazing to hear a lawyer state such a proposition.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but what I said was civil equality as regards individuals, and I have the assent of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who proposed and seconded the proposition.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI am not talking about individuals, but trade union funds. The remedy against those individuals in this matter is practically futile. The individuals who have been put forward are men of straw. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You are going to put forward persons who may be shot at while the trade unions cannot be, and the result will be that the persons who are aggrieved will have to go 1102 through a very expensive form in endeavouring to assert their rights—in fact, having been aggrieved, an extra tax is put upon them because they can get no remedy from the other side at all. Great as is the title of trade unions to recognition and to public gratitude, what have they done above all other associations in this Kingdom to make them immune in a field it was not contemplated they were going to enter at all? The Attorney-General, in the latter part of his speech, referred to the question of libel, but libel is not the only wrong in respect of which trade unions are rendered immune; there is a great number of other wrongs, such as conspiracy and the like, to be considered. An injunction, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is not sufficient against an individual, and is very likely to be again futile; therefore, you really do come back to this, that though in 1906 the general funds of the trade unions were rendered immune, yet there was no discussion on the subject of their entering the field of politics, for it is now a political fund which is being created under the law—{an HON. MEMBER: "No "]—a political fund which did not exist previously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let me put it again. Politics are now made a field of operations by trade unions. Immunity is to be given to them in that field, which, after all, is productive of the most fiery disputes and where the greatest temptation arises in time of political warfare to use the weapons of violence and illegality.
I am not in the least suggesting that trade unions are more likely to use them than other people, but if other people do use them they are punished for it; yet, though even under greater temptations than others, trade unions are alone rendered immune from consequences. I ask hon. Gentlemen who sit on those Benches opposite to project their minds four or five years from now. Public opinion in this country is, I believe, ultimately in favour of justice and fair play and against discrimnation in favour of one class against another. But this proposal is to discriminate this is to give a preference. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, I think it is—a preference to one organisation which is not given to another. I do not know why the Attorney-General mentioned the Tariff Reform League and also the Free Trade League. I am quite aware that he held the balance when he mentioned both sides. I do not think the 1103 Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League constitute a fair comparison, but if any person were aggrieved by the action of the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League it would be quite possible for him to sue a number of individuals in their representative action, and the person so suing might get substantial damages. The right hon. Gentleman unintentionally, I imagine, but very really, obscured and confused this issue. There is a satisfactory remedy against the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League in such cases, and substantial damages could be recovered. Against the individuals representative of trade unions, however, there would be no substantial remedy whatever. You are setting up in the field of politics an immunity which was never intended in 1906, and really, in the best interests of trade unions, it ought to be rejected.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI am one of those unfortunate individuals who break the unanimitiy to which my right hon. Friend has referred, for I believe it is not in the interests of trade unions to make the concession of absolute immunity in respect of an action of tort. I see no reason to alter the opinion which I formed some time ago, although at the same time I am bound to confess that the history of trade unions, both prior to the passage of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and subsequent thereto, has been almost absolutely free from the commissions of torts for which they would be liable. I think that is a tribute to those who are concerned, and I think my right hon. Friend opposite will concede that what I say of trade unions is correct. I am not prepared to admit, with the Attorney-General, that there is any serious obstacle to limiting the doctrine of agency. His was not the view held by his distinguished predecessor. Sir Lawson Walton, who drafted a Bill which, if I may say so without egotism, was founded upon one which I had previously introduced into this House, and which, curiously enough, had as the backers of it, every Labour Member in this House, with, I think, the solitary exception of the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). I do not find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his pronouncement on the doctrine of vicarious responsibility. That is a doctrine of not very ancient origin, but it is a doctrine well established in the law of this land, and it is a doctrine which is entirely 1104 subverted, I think, so far as the trade unions are concerned. Neither do I agree with him in his view that trade unions, if not as quasi-corporate made responsible, that the man who suffered the tort could recover from the individual. He could not recover satisfaction from the individual for a very obvious reason. In many cases the quantum of damages sought to be recovered would break even the imaginary individuals to whom my right hon. Friend alluded. I know of one case, which I think the Attorney-General also knows of, in which £200,000 was sought to be recovered from the union. I certainly think that it is a solecism in law that you give absolute immunity to trade unions in respect of damages. It is obvious that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would in the main be directed against libels and slanders committed during the course of an election. Neither do I agree that satisfaction could always or generally be obtained from the printer or publisher, because the printer or the publisher—and I am sure hon. Members below the Gangway will not challenge the accuracy of this statement—of any circulars or any libels that might be circulated would be the trade union itself. Therefore the trade union would be immune, and the individual aggrieved would have no remedy against any printer or publisher other than the trade union, and not against the trade union.
So much for general observations upon the attitude which I take up with regard to this question of immunity. I now want to appeal to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott), and I think he will probably agree with the view I take. In the first place, I do not think that this is the right way in which to meet this question. I think my right hon. Friend opposite took up the correct attitude. His speech was a speech which might very properly have been directed to the Second Reading of the Trades Disputes Act in 1906. This Bill does not seek to repeal the Trades Disputes Act of 1906; it simply deals with the latter section, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes is this: He says, inasmuch as a trade union is setting up a separate establishment, financially at any rate, in respect of political objects, make that establishment, that is the fund belonging to that establishment, liable for torts committed in furtherance of political objects. He limits the repeal of the Act of 1906 to torts committed in furtherance of political objects. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman examined this Bill with care? 1105 In the first place, remember that this kind of tort which would not be exempted if this Amendment should pass would be, generally speaking, a libel or slander committed during the course of some political controversy, generally an election. It would be a libel or slander perpetrated by a trade union or by agents of a trade union for which the trade union would be liable. I think it is not a very violent assumption to say that such a libel would if committed would be probably associated with some economic grievance of the trade union, that is to say, some question between capital and labour. If it should be associated either by literature or by speech at a political meeting with this economic object it would cease to be a political object, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to paragraph (e) of Subsection (2), Clause 3, he will find this:—
on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature, or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of the Act.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTThe main objects.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESWhat are statutory objects? Statutory objects are mentioned in the Acts of 1871 and 1876. Statutory objects under Section 16 are Acts regulating the relations between workmen and masters and Acts in restriction of trade. I can hardly conceive a case of a libel or slander against which this Amendment is undoubtedly directed in which it might not be pleaded that that libel or slander was perpetrated under the protection of Sub-clause (e) and therefore was not a political object. That, to my mind, is a conclusive argument, I do not say against the theoretic value but against the practical value of the Amendment. In other words, suppose that in the course of an election the trade union enter into it and say, "So-and-so is a bad employer; he underpays his workmen or overtaxes their hours of labour," and that an action was brought by that employer of labour, then the trade union would be able to plead paragraph (e) of Section 3 and to receive immunity. I think therefore the Amendment is valueless; I shall vote against it. If the Amendment had been on broader or more Catholic lines, I might have supported it. What is done is done, and 1106 however that may be, I cannot support this Amendment, because I think it impracticable and inefficacious, and because I think it is not the true way of dealing with what I believe, and what I say with all due deference to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, is a statutory protection which is not only absolutely gratuitously unnecessary but mischievous, and one which if properly argued and discussed among my hon. Friends, I am sure not one of them would wish to see in justice, but would regard as unnecessary.
§ Mr. CAVEMost of us will agree with a great deal that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Atherley-Jones) has said, but the conclusion of his speech was somewhat lame. Having laid it down that he strongly supported this Clause, he concluded by saying that he would vote against it because it did not go far enough.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESAnd because it was ineffective.
§ Mr. CAVEIt would be effective so far as it goes. But the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it to go further, and therefore will not support it, even as far as it goes. The point involved is very short and simple. I should like to hear the views of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite with regard to it. I want to know how far they claim, the special privileges which the Bill, unless this Clause is adopted, for the first time gives to them. Let me put it quite shortly. A person who commits a wrong is liable in every case. If that person is an agent of any body, whether a corporation or not, then in the case of every body, except a trade union, you can make the principals liable. In other words, supposing, as nearly always happens, the agent who is liable theoretically to be sued and to pay damages, is not worth powder and shot, you can go against the person who prompted the wrong and employed and perhaps paid the agent, and you have a better chance of recovering damages for the wrong done to you. That applies to everybody, subject only to the Trades Disputes Act. Under the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 immunity is given to trade unions. It is provided that if they employ and pay a man to do wrong they alone of all bodies are not liable to pay damages for the wrong done at their instigation and by their agent. I am sure the Attorney-General would not say that that provision was not strongly opposed upon this side of the House? I myself certainly 1107 opposed it; I know I voted against it. I think it wrong in principle, and I would vote for its repeal to-day. I think that that section of the Trades Disputes Act was, and is, wholly indefensible. But it was limited in this way—not by its terms, but in the nature of things. At that time the objects of trade unions were strictly limited. Unions could only be formed for what are here called statutory objects—for the purpose of promoting trade interests. Therefore, any wrong that would be done would in most cases be done in furtherance of trade interests. That circumstance imposed a practical, if not a legal limit upon the operation of Section 4 of the Act of 1906. By this Bill you are extending the objects for which a union may be formed. For the first time you are going to authorise unions to pursue political objects—to hold election meetings, to publish election literature, to contribute towards election expenses, and matters of that kind. Therefore to-day for the first time you are empowering trade unions to commit other and far more numerous wrongs. Under this Bill a union may, I do not say will, be guilty of corrupt practices and other wrongs. That is a new thing. Under this Bill for the first time you authorise a union to go into a field of action where, these wrongs may be committed. I am not saying—I do not think that anybody would be disposed to say—that a trade union is more likely than any other body to commit wrongs in the exercise of these functions. But every body, every corporation and every kind of association, may from time to time be led into a breach of the law and thereby cause damage to individuals. The point is, that if you pass the Bill without this Clause you extend the immunity given by the Act of 1906 to a body formed for trade objects to a trade union acting in political matters; therefore unless you adopt, the Clause you are extending the immunity.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his general statement of the law; but trade unions participated in political action prior to 1906.
§ Mr. CAVEIt is true that they were taking some part in political action, but I doubt whether it was so full a part as they are authorised to take under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] Whether I am right in that or not, I think it is the fact that many lawyers 1108 doubted whether they were authorised to take that part. At all events, it is the declared law to-day that they were not so authorised. Therefore I am right in saying, arguing on the law of to-day, and not on what was in men's minds seven years ago, that for the first time according to law you are authorising trade unions to take political action. Therefore for the first time you are authorising them to do this thing in which special torts may be committed, and unless you pass this Clause you are extending the immunity given by the Act of 1906. If that is so, my hon. Friend is entitled to say, "If you are going to extend the power, do not extend the immunity." That is the whole purpose and effect of this Clause. I ask hon. Members opposite to give attention to this point. Unless you pass this Clause you do discriminate; you are giving to these bodies, which hitherto have had excellent objects, and which are now to have other purposes not so excellent—I mean, of course, political objects—which may be liable to criticism—you are going to give to these bodies alone in our country immunity for wrongs committed in pursuance of those objects. Do trade unionists claim that discrimination and that exemption? I am not sure that they do plainly and openly. I expect they would try and explain them away, but to my mind they are incapable of being explained away. I do not think the discrimination ought to exist. I do not think that it ought to be the law that if, say, a political pamphlet or broadside or sheet is published having at the bottom "Printed and published by Such-and-such a Company, Ltd.," that company should be liable to be sued for libel; while if it has at the bottom "Printed and published by Such-and-such a Trade Union" that union shall not be liable to be sued for libel. That is the plain result of this Bill; a plain, clear discrimination between one body and another. I submit to the House that it is not a fair and proper thing, and I want to know whether hon. Members below the Gangway think it is, knowing, as they must know, that the effect of the Bill is to claim exemption for their unions.
§ Mr. GILLIt is with some diffidence that I rise to speak on this subject after half a dozen lawyers, but it is interesting, and I think gratifying, to know the careful manner in which trade unions are being discussed, and the careful way in which arguments against them expressed. 1109 It is suggested that you are going to give trade unions power that they should not have. So far as we are concerned we cannot accept that statement. From 1874 until a very few years ago, trade unions were conducted in a way known to the public, and never a single word was said by anyone during the whole of those thirty-five or thirty-six years against that conduct. It cannot be accepted by this party that we are getting new political powers. We are simply getting a portion of the powers restored to us that were taken away from us in 1909. It is said that we ought not to have power to obtain funds, and it is rather suggested that those funds were not in operation in 1906 when the Trades Disputes Act was passed. That cannot be argued. It was not well known to this House that trade unions had those funds. It was definitely known that the Labour party was in existence, and that the trade unions throughout the whole of the United Kingdom were contributing their levies to that Labour party.
There was a large body of Labour Members in this House in 1906, when twenty-nine, who were closely connected with the Labour party were returned. These were getting part of their salaries from their trade unions. When that is understood—and it must have been known at the time—I do not think it can be said that the fact that we are going to be allowed to levy and get funds from members at the present time, after this Bill is passed, is anything new. It has been done since 1874 and until a little while ago. We are simply getting back a portion of the powers that have been taken from us. It has been suggested that violence and illegality may be committed by certain trade unionists when they are engaged in politics. I take it that it is meant by that, that when an election is taking place there is nobody that can be accused in connection with such an act of illegality. Have we ever seen it done? Has there been any election where trade unionists have been candidates and where those elections have not been conducted as fairly, as peaceably, and in other ways as rightly as any other election in which the orthodox parties were concerned? I venture to assert that such elections as I refer to have been conducted more fairly and with much less expenditure of money than have the others. We do not ask to be given preference. We 1110 only seek to have fair play, and to be put on exactly the same terms as the other political parties are. One hon. Member referred to the Tariff Reform League. He said they were different from the trade unions in this particular respect, that if some of their members committed a wrongful act they were generally wealthy men and could be sued—
§ Mr. GILLAnd substantial damages obtained. And it was suggested by the same hon. Member that the men connected with trade unions were poor men and men of straw, from whom substantial damages could not be got if they did anything wrong. I have yet to learn that the whole of the Tariff Reformers are wealthy men. If elections are anything to go by, there must be a large number of working men who vote for the Conservative party and the principles of Tariff Reform. If that be so, they are exactly in the same position as trade unionists, because if one of these poor men should commit an illegal action he can be sued in exactly the same way as any of those connected with a trade union. So far as the suggestion is concerned that trade unionists will be men of straw, and that no substantial damages can be obtained, they are exactly on the same footing as Tariff Reformers. It has been suggested that the political fund only is to remain liable, and that it is used as an argument that the matter is only a small one. But it is an exceedingly large matter so far as the political action of trade unions is concerned, inasmuch as when this Bill is passed we shall not be able to use the general funds for this purpose. We should only have the political funds for the purpose of dealing with elections, registration, and all the necessary paraphernalia connected therewith. If therefore damages are to be taken out of the political fund it must follow that we will not be able to run the number of candidates that we have been accustomed to run, or may want to do, and that we shall be accordingly crippled in our political action. It is suggested that the law of agency should come in in this particular case. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who last sat down suggested that every other body could be sued except the trade unions. Does he say that Liberal associations, Conservative associations, or Tariff Reform leagues can be sued if a canvasser going round for votes makes use of some libellous words?
§ Mr. CAVEIf any agent of these bodies commits a wrong the body itself or a committee of the body can be sued.
§ Mr. GILLIs the canvasser considered to be an agent of the body if he is a man who is not working for money, but simply a person going round to induce his fellow men to vote? I venture to say that he would not be considered an agent. Therefore, I think the only one to be sued would be the man himself—who did the wrong; and that is exactly the case in regard to trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, we say that individually we are quite prepared to act exactly as do the Liberal, the Conservative, or other parties. If we commit any illegal action the man who commits it is prepared to stand the responsibility. That is what ought to be. But if a person commits some illegal action and the trade union knows nothing about it is it fair to charge that trade unions, to mulct their funds, and cause damages to have to be paid because that man has done something wrong. Everybody knows we should be entirely in an unfair position and handicapped severely if we had to come under these laws, as hon. Members opposite want us to do. The only thing we want is that we shall be allowed to act in regard to political action on exactly the same lines as other people. I have yet to learn—certainly nothing has been said yet—that we were to have the benefit of any privilege whatever. Reference has been made to the publication of certain libels, and it has been stated that if trade unions print libels they are not to be liable for damages. How many of the trade unions do their own printing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Publishing."] I only know one trade union that prints its own matter. I hope that this Clause will be rejected on the ground that it is entirely unfair to the working men who come to this House.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe Attorney-General has cited what he has described as the unanimous decision of this House in the case of the Trades Disputes Act. He has said that if this Clause were pasted we should be going back on the decision of the House in the case of the Trades Disputes Act. I should like to point out to him the very fundamental difference of what is now being proposed and what was decided by the House in 1906. It is this: It was felt in the country that the great hardship of the Taff Vale decision was that a single action in the Law Courts could rob working men of thousands of 1112 pounds which they accumulated for their sickness benefit and their strike benefit. That was one—I do not say it was the only reason—but it was one of the strongest reasons why there was such a strong demand for the repeal of the Taff Vale judgment. What we are proposing here is not going to touch the benefit funds, the strike fund, or the general funds of the unions at all. I interrupted the learned Attorney-General in his speech, but I do not think that he quite understood the nature of my interruption. My point is this: That insomuch as this Bill makes a distinction between the general funds of the union and the political fund of the union, and ear-marks the political fund into a watertight compartment as it were, it is possible to make the union responsible for its political actions by way of its political fund without affecting in the slightest degree the general fund. That is what we desire to do. The hon. Member for Bolton has said he is only claiming that trade unions should be treated on an equality with every other body in the country. I can assure him that is all we ask.
Take as a concrete instance the Tariff Reform League, and suppose they issue a leaflet libellous in character, and the person affected sties for libel. He can sue the executive of the league, and he could sue members of the league as well and get substantial damages for the wrong inflicted upon him. On the other hand, if a libel was published by a trade union upon some member of the Tariff Reform League that member could not sue the trade union. The hon. Member opposite said that the tariff reformer could sue the member of the union, but that is not the point. What recompense would it be to a man who has been libelled, who had had his political chances impaired, and had damage done to him in his trade or business to get a trade unionist sold up? The only recompense that can be made to a man in those circumstances is financial compensation for the loss incurred. What satisfaction is it to a man who has had his business injured to be told that he can revenge himself by getting the man who has injured him sold up? That is no recompense at all. It is quite true that it is a deterrent, but it is no recompense to the injured man if he does not get adequate compensation for the injury inflicted upon him. That is our answer to hon. Members opposite. They tell us that it is always 1113 possible to proceed against an individual person. Of course it is, but no compensation is derived thereby, and it is no satisfaction to the injured man simply to have his revenge on some unfortunate man who has simply been, as it were, the instrument of a larger and more powerful corporation.
§ Sir W. BYLESHe gets the verdict.
§ Viscount WOLMERYes, but he does not get his costs, and he has got to suffer the loss inflicted upon him. The hon. Member for Bolton said that there were many poor members of the Tariff Reform League, and it would be no use proceeding against them from the point of view of getting financial compensation.
§ Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSThey are on committees as well.
§ Viscount WOLMERA man can select a member of the committee, and he can bring his action against him.
§ Viscount WOLMERNo, but they can sue the members of the committee. Hon. Members opposite will not deny that if any one of them was libelled by a member of the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade Union it would be quite easy for them to get full damages for the libel committed upon them, whereas if the libel was perpetrated by a trade union it would not be possible for the libelled man to get his damages. That is why we say the law makes an unfair distinction between a trade union acting in its political capacity and other political organisations. We quite see that it would be unfair to distrain upon the general fund of the union contributed by all members of the trade union, whether they had contributed to the political fund or not, merely for some libel that had been committed by the managers of the political part of the union. We therefore desire that it shall be the political fund of the union contributed for carrying on party politics by those members who presumably approve of the objects to which that fund is going to be devoted. We say it is only fair that that fund should bear the cost if those powers are used illegitimately.
The hon. Member for Bolton asked what accusations have we to bring against trade unions for the manner in which they have conducted their political warfare in the past. I am not prepared to bring any 1114 accusation against them, but it is common knowledge to all of us that in the course of elections and after the election is over, when partisan feeling is running high, libels have been committed upon Members of this House in the past by all political parties. I see hon. Members opposite who have been libelled by particular persons, and this shows the risk which politicians run in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was libelled two or three years ago. These libels, as the hon. Member for Durham suggested, would not be confined to industrial matters, and I quoted the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's libel action to show that politicians are often subjected to libels which affect their moral character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained £1,000 damages for the libel that was made upon him, and the right hon. Gentleman explained the other day in his native village that he ascribed that libel to the animus of his political opponents. That shows that when a man has reached sufficient notoriety to be thoroughly well beloved on one side and thoroughly well hated on the other side he runs a risk of being libelled which ordinary persons do not run. I would say to hon. Members opposite that they might find themselves in exactly the same position a few years later, because I venture to say if anyone of them fell out with the trades union body, of which they are at present such distinguished ornaments, there would be bound to be some very bitter words. We see in politics that old friends, when feuds arise, show great bitterness, as witness the difference between President Taft and Mr. Roosevelt, and also our old friend, Mr. Lansbury, who has been confirming what I am saying about the Labour party for three years past. I would ask hon. Members opposite, supposing they ever fell out with their unions, and supposing they considered they had been libelled by their old political companions, they would be in the position of not being able to get any compensation for the injury that had been done them, and I would warn hon. Gentlemen that in trying to set up a privilege for their unions and themselves like this, that is not a policy which will be to their advantage, and that in time to come they will find it cuts both ways. I would point out that a time may come when they will be in the position to find out that the immunity and privilege which they have secured for trade unions is one that is not entirely to their benefit.
1115 We have heard this afternoon something, as usual, of judge-made law. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite object very much to judge-made law. I would like to point out to them that this Clause which we are proposing is designed to remove the effect of the decision of the Vacher case so far as it extends to politics, that is to say, this Clause is designed to remove a piece of judge-made law as it affects trades unions in their political capacity, because when the Trades Disputes Act was passed, most people considered it only affected trades union when they were engaged in trade disputes, and by this piece of judge-made law it has been proved that the House of Commons was, as usual, wrong. All we are trying to do is to remedy this piece of judge-made law and therefore I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who bear such invincible hatred of judge-made law will support us in the action we are taking. I venture to hope that if this Clause is inserted in the Bill, it will do nothing to injure trades union, but will strengthen them by taking away the impression that at present prevails amongst the public that they are in an unfair position as regards their political opponents. It will do nothing but place them upon absolute terms of equality with the men whom they have to fight politically in the constituencies in this country, and it will do nothing but to strengthen those who accept the lawful powers given to them by this Bill.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSI rise to oppose this Amendment mainly upon two grounds. First, because it seems to me to make a very grave inroad into the principles which were embodied in the 1906 Act; and, secondly, because it is based upon a series of assumptions and assertions which I venture to say are entirely unfounded in fact. It is not surprising that the Noble Lord should have spoken with a certain looseness and confusion of expression, being a layman, when you have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, an assertion of a similar sort in a more definite way. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain precisely what he meant by that part of his speech, but he said I should have an opportunity of dealing with the matter when I got up to speak. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he repeated over and over again that the Act of 1906 placed trade unions in a position of privilege and 1116 immunity, and also when he said that this Bill, as it now stands, proposes to extend that immunity, if he can state any single case of an incorporated body which, as a body, is liable in law to an action for tort? I do not care whether he takes a congregation in a Nonconformist place of worship which employs a minister who may libel a person, or whether he takes the Church Defence Union, the Central Campaign Committee for the Promotion of Welsh Disestablishment, or the Central Conservative Association, or the National Liberal Association, the Cobden Club, or the Tariff Reform League, Anti-Suffragist Society, or the Suffragists' Society. I ask him if he can give one single case where an unincorporated body is liable in law as a body in its funds for tort?
§ Mr. HOHLERCan the hon. Gentleman state a single unincorporated body which is wholly exempt by its members from all punitive legislation?
Mr. EDWARDSIf the hon. and learned Member puts it in that way, I could tell him in every unincorporated body the position is this, and it is the same in the trade union body. If you can show that a trade union official is the authorised agent of X, Y, Z, who are members of the union, you can not only proceed against that agent and his property, but you can also proceed against the individual property of X,Y, Z. There is nothing in the law which prevents that with regard to trade unions, but what you cannot do is this: You cannot with a trade union take your agent and say he was authorised to do certain acts by X, Y, Z, who are interested in certain trade funds in which A, B, C are also interested, and collar these trade funds without regard to whether A, B, and C authorised the wrong act as well as X, Y, Z. That is precisely the position, and I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that that is not precisely the law with regard to every unincorporated body at this moment. I shall go on with my illustration. I take a club which is not a registered club. I do not care whether it is a distinguished critic club of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished member, or a football club or a social club; the position is this: There is no single case where you have a body of persons who are not a corporate body where there is collective liability of that body for the wrong acts of its servants. The law of agency with bodies of that kind only goes so far as to 1117 make liable in their property those members who authorise the wrongful act. I think the right hon. Gentleman felt his proposition could not quite stand, and that there is no legal immunity for trade unions in tort different from any legal immunity enjoyed by any other incorporated body. There is this distinction: If you take another body, like the Tariff Reform League, you have a number of individual members who, if they authorise the committal of a wrong by an agent of the league, have sufficient substance themselves as individuals to satisfy any claim in a Court of Law. The real immunity which is enjoyed, if it be an enjoyment, by a trade union, as compared with another incorporated body, is, therefore, that the trade union consists of a body of persons who, for the most part, are poverty-stricken, whereas other bodies have persons of substance and of wealth whose property can be attached.
The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer) seemed to think that was the real ground of distinction. I am not sure he was not correct. Taking it for granted for the moment that he was right, I was not surprised he should advocate trade unions being put in a special legal category by themselves as distinct from these other bodies, because these other bodies have substantial persons whose property may satisfy judgment, and trade unions have not. Therefore, you must place these bodies of poverty-stricken persons in a position, not of immunity, but of special collective liability, before the law, and thus penalise them for their very poverty. That seems to be the proposition. It is said by the Noble Lord that what is proposed by this Amendment is to undo a judge-made decision, namely, the decision given in the Vacher sense. He spoke of the Vacher case as though it were one that took no one by surprise who had anything at all to do with the 1906 Trades Disputes Act. The final form of the fourth Section of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 was, as a matter of fact, due entirely to amendments which had been proposed because of a precisely similar case to that of the Vacher case, namely, the Linaker v. Pilcher case, which was an action brought against the newspaper of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. It was to shut out that kind of tort as well as the other that the final form of the Act of 1906 was decided upon.
1118 The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, followed by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) suggested that the political funds of trade unions are something quite new and were not in existence in 1906 when the Trades Disputes Act was introduced. I venture to say it was very largely the Taff Vale decision in 1900 that caused the great political funds to be subscribed, and I venture also to say the amount of money in the political funds of the trade unions in 1906 was very much larger than at the present moment. Nobody, of course, in 1906 suspected, there was never a whispered suggestion from any of those benches, that the trade unions had not an absolute and legal right to raise money for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman very rightly referred to the work his party have done with regard to trade unions. His party in 1876 brought in a Bill amending the Trade Union Act of 1871, and that Parliament for the first time I believe was fortified by three or four distinguished Labour representatives who came to this House by reason of money subscribed by the members of their trade unions. There was never a suggestion on the part of Mr. Richard Cross, as he then was, the Home Secretary responsible for that Bill, that these people had no right to have spent the money of their unions in getting elected to Parliament, and, though a great deal of money was spent on Municipal elections as well as on Parliamentary elections from that time down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, there was never a whispered suggestion from any part of the House or from anyone in the country that trade unions had not an absolute and unquestioned right to raise money for political purposes.
It would be acting with ill grace if this House in restoring to trade unions that political power which they were supposed to have enjoyed without question were to accompany that by an Amendment of this kind which is not only calculated to restrict the usefulness of that concession in itself, but is also calculated very seriously to militate against the general usefulness of trade unions by making an inroad upon that protection which was given them on their industrial side by the Act of 1906. It is suggested it is only attempting to restrain them on the political side in the matter of libel. I wonder whether there is a single lawyer in this House or any layman who can tell when a political libel 1119 begins and an industrial libel ends. In nearly all the statements which are alleged to be libels issued by trade unions, no one can draw the real distinction; and, if you are going to open the door for actions for tort by which you may attack their funds by way of damages, and if you are going to let that depend upon whether the judge takes the view that it is a political libel or a libel committed in furtherance or in contemplation of a trade dispute, I venture to say there are very few circulars which trade unions may issue in which there are untrue statements where you will not find the funds of the union made liable in damages. Therefore I ask the House to reject this Amendment, not only on the unfounded assumption upon which it is advanced, but also because it would, I believe, make a grave and vital inroad upon the protective provisions of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906.
Mr. H.TERRELLThe hon. Member opposite endeavoured to oppose this Amendment by saying it was in substance going behind the Act of 1906, Clause 4, and that that Clause was passed by this House of Commons unanimously. It is no doubt true that the Third Reading was not challenged on a Division, but I do not think it is true that the Clause was not opposed by the Opposition as strenuously as they could. If it be said that whenever a Division is once taken upon a point and the Opposition do not go on and divide upon that point at every stage of the Bill therefore the Opposition are to be taken as assenting to it, then it will become essential for the Opposition to take a Division more numerously than ever before. I do not think it can really be said that the Clause was passed in any degree unanimously, and for this purpose I will refer to the speech of the Prime Minister. It will be in the recollection of this House that this Clause was taken from a Bill introduced by Mr. Shackleton in 1903, and the present Prime Minister, speaking in reference to it in this House on the 8th May, said:—
I do not think it would be expedient from the point of view of combination, either of the employers or of the workmen, that those who are in favour of their effective existence and vitality should attempt to ask Parliament to lay down a policy of this kind, that large trade organisations possessing large funds and directed by a controlling authority should not be responsible for the unlawful acts shown to be committed by their agents, if they be really their agents within the scope of their authority.I do not think consistently with that the Prime Minister can have supported Clause 1120 4 of the Act of 1906 unless the Prime Minister had turned round entirely from what he said on that occasion. I want to say a few words with reference to the law laid down by the hon. Member for Glamorgan. He challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, to say that unincorporated associations could be sued in the Courts for tort, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman could ever have read the Taff Vale judgment, for that was the point which was argued there and which was decided in the judgment. Let me read to my hon. and learned Friend a passage in the judgment:—Mr. Haldane, indeed, was bold enough to say that if a wrong was committed by a body of persons acting in concert who were too numerous to be made defendants in an action, the person injured would be without remedy unless he could fasten on the individuals who, with their own hands, were actually doing the wrong. Then, he was asked, what would he say to such a case as this: Suppose there were a manufactory belonging to a co-operative society, unregistered, and composed of a great number of persons (as well there might be but for the provisions in the Companies Act making illegal an unregistered trading society consisting of more than twenty members), and suppose such a manufactory were poisoning a stream or fouling the atmosphere to the injury of its neighbours, might it do so with impunity? Mr. Haldane said, 'Yes, you must pounce on the individual offender. It seems to me this is a reduction to an absurdity. I should be sorry to think that the law was so powerless, and therefore it seems to me that there would be no difficulty in suing a trade union in a proper case, if it be sued in a representative action by persons who fairly and properly represent it.
§ 10.0 P.M.
Mr. EDWARDSThat does not in the least contradict what I said. Apparently I have not made my meaning clear. What I said was, "You can do with the trade unions what you can do with other bodies; you can take certain individuals as defendants and make them representative of the body as individuals who authorised the wrong, but you cannot take the body quâbody in the case of an unincorporated society."
Mr. TERRELLI do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has ever read the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Let me call his attention to Clause 4.
Mr. EDWARDSI drew the Amendment to Section 4 of the Act of 1906, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House at that time he would have remembered the passage of arms between the then learned Attorney-General and myself in regard to that matter. As to the Taff Vale case, I was in that.
Mr. TERRELLThe hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten. Let me 1121 read to him the Section. It not only deals -with actions against unionists but with actions against trade unions, whether workmen or masters, or against any members or officials who, on behalf of themselves or of their members, may be responsible for the wrong alleged to have been committed. There you have a trades union in a different position to any other incorporated body.
Mr. EDWARDSThe hon. and learned Gentleman has, I am sure, quite unwittingly, misrepresented me. What I say with regard to that is this. You may sue your individual members of a trade union, but you cannot sue them on behalf of the trade union. You may sue an individual member of the Tariff Reform League, but you cannot sue him quâmembers of that league.
Mr. TERRELLIf you have an unincorporated association of persons, and those persons commit a tortious act, you can go for the fund of those persons by action if they have any funds in common. You can go against the management of that association, they can be sued on behalf of themselves and others, but you cannot do that with regard to a trade union. When the hon. and learned Gentleman challenged my right hon. and learned Friend to put to him a case where an unincorporated body could be sued in respect of tort, and any property of an un incorporated body could be made avail able for damages sustained by the persons injured—
Mr. EDWARDSCan the hon. and learned Gentleman state one single case where that has been done apart from a trade union?
Mr. TERRELLIf the hon. Member will look at the Tail Vale case he will see that Lord Justice Lindley referred to many cases in which it had been the common practice for many years past for persons who have sustained a wrong to sue one or more in order to get an injunction. The hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely wrong when he challenged my right hon. Friend to say whether his view was that an unincorporated body could be sued and their property made responsible. I say that undoubtedly any unincorporated body, except a trade union, which by its agents commits a wrong, is liable for that wrong, can be made responsible for that wrong, and the property of that body can 1122 be taken to answer the damage suffered by the person who has been wronged. By the Act of 1906, you put the trade unions in a position occupied by no other body of persons in the country, and you put them above and beyond the law. Under the Act of 1906, the lawful activities of trade unions are limited by what are described as statutory trade union objects. So long as a trade union is operating within those objects it can commit any unlawful act it pleases; it can impose any loss upon any other person it pleases, and the trade union and its funds cannot be reached by the person injured. But if the trade union goes outside those objects and embarks in an activity which is ultra vires a trade union the immunity does not apply. Now you are going to make that immunity to apply by making any conceivable activity the union chooses to engage in a lawful activity. In this Bill you are providing that a trade union may, by its rules, include in its objects, provided it has the statutory objects as its prinicpal objects, any object it pleases. Those objects will become lawful objects. It may, in the carrying out of those objects, commit any wrong it pleases without any remedy being given to the person who has been injured. This Clause is intended to limit, to a minor extent, that which seems to me absolutely contrary to the law in every other civilised country; it is a law which places a body of men above and outside the law. You are asked by this Clause to limit that immunity, so that it shall not include the political activities of the trade unions.
May I put to the House this case? You may have, and you have in some places, a trade union which conducts a newspaper. You may, and you have in some places, political associations which conduct newspapers. You may have an election. You may have a trade union candidate, one representing their political organisation. If the trade union paper libels the opposing candidate that person cannot get an injunction to restrain that libel. He may get an injunction against an individual person, but not against the union. The union may employ a different man to publish the paper every day, for that is a merely nominal act. The trade union can day after day during an election continue the libel, and the man will have no remedy, not only no remedy in damages, but he cannot even stop it by an injunction. If, on the other hand, the newspaper which is run by his political opponents publishes 1123 anything in the nature of a libel on the trade union candidate, that can be stopped at once. He can obtain an injunction at once against the organisation which is running that paper, and he can seize that paper in execution for any damages he has sustained. An hon. Member said that all the trade unionists want is to be put in an equal position with every other section of the community. Is that placing them on an equal footing and giving them equal rights, if one side can stop a libel and the other side cannot, and one side can be sued for libel and the other cannot? If this Clause is rejected that will be the position. Whenever an election is fought hereafter in which a trade union candidate is supported by a trade unionist paper, and another candidate, either a Liberal or a Conservative, is opposing him, supported by a Liberal or a Conservative paper, that extraordinary position will obtain. The trade unionist candidate will be able to stop anything in the nature of a libel against him, whereas the Conservative or Liberal will not be able to do so.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMWould not an action lie against the printer?
Mr. TERRELLYes, possibly against the printer, but the trade union itself can print it, and then the action will not lie. The trade union can change its printer every day if it pleases. Such a state of things is absolutely contrary to the principles of democratic government. As I understand them, the principles of democratic government are based upon law, and without law there can be no democratic government. If it be true democratic government it insists that every man within the State shall be amenable to the same law; that there shall not be one law for one section and another law for another section, and, above all, that there shall not be a single section which shall be above the law. By objecting to this Clause you are emphasising and extending the favoured position of trade unions. You are extending their position as being above and beyond the law, you are placing them in a position which makes it extremely unfair to those who are not trade unionists, which may, in the circumstances I have suggested, work a gross injustice. That is done in the name of fairness and equality of treatment between all sections of the community!
§ Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETTI shall not venture to discuss the principles of the Bill. They have been decided already by this House on the Second Reading. There may be an opening for drawing distinctions such as have been drawn, as to equality in the eyes of the law. For reasons too lengthy to enter upon, this House and the country, I believe, have decided to give a certain immunity or some advantages to trade organisations. At the present time, under this Bill their funds will be divided into two parts; one relating to disputes arising out of trade questions, the other, which is usually the smaller part of their funds, to be devoted to political objects. So far as the funds which are reserved for trade questions are concerned, those funds are protected. Any question of libel arising out of a dispute on a trade question will not hold against the funds of the union, and we are asked now to make a distinction in favour of the smaller reserved funds devoted to political purposes. Under ordinary conditions of fighting an election, for it is of course at election times when these difficulties arise, surely we do not suppose that the unions themselves are going to fight the election. They are the backers. They nominate, it is true, the candidates, and send speakers to support them, but they are as much a reserve force as political organisations are for the other parties in the State. The election is fought under electoral law. The candidate emerges from his union and becomes subject to all the contingencies, the risks and penalties of electoral law. Those who are working for him are his agents. Many of them will have no connection with the unions at all. The unions cannot call out all their men from the factories and mines to fight an election. The work has to go on, election time or no election time, and therefore the liabilities of an election and the risks of a candidate, whether he be nominated by a union or not, are exactly the same under the law. That that is so is proved in the course of this Debate, for the only suggestion I have heard has been the risk of libel, printed and published in a newspaper or in the form of a pamphlet. A paper is of no use unless it is circulated. A pamphlet is of no use in an election unless the candidate adopts it, refers to it in his speeches, and employs his agents to distribute it. All these men will come under the common law, and therefore it will be useless to publish a pamphlet which you could not 1125 circulate, or circulate a paper containing a libel which could not reach the very persons that you want to make the libel effective. Under ordinary circumstances there is no such risk as has been suggested.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhy should not a trade union send by post a pamphlet or newspaper to every elector?
§ Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETTThat would be commented on. A speaker who speaks on behalf of a candidate cannot be dumb about it. They will be asked questions at meetings. The candidate has practically to adopt it, and, of course, will run all the risks, unless the union keep their own printing press, or employ a printer, who will be the object to be shot at under the law of libel. I think this is really the kernel of the case.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI should apologise to the hon. Member (Mr. Gill) for the fact that I too am a lawyer, but I certainly owe no such apology to the hon. Member (Mr. Clement Edwards). If the hon. Member were here I should have felt disposed to try and resolve to him the conundrum which he propounded. He asked when does an industrial dispute end and a political libel begin? My answer would be that there are people who think that that particular moment of time might arrive when the hon. Member himself went down to the district. The hon. Member has attributed looseness of expression to two distinguished lawyers on the Front Bench on this side of the House. He has himself been guilty of the most utter looseness in a statement of the law affecting this subject. He asks what other incorporated body is liable to the obligations which it is sought to attach to trade unions, and he regards that as putting a flat-footed proposition to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman completely overlooks the fact that the Legislature has granted to trade unions certainly two distinguished qualities which belong to corporate bodies. I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the judges have stated that the Legislature, in giving a trade union the capacity to hold property and to act by agents as though incorporate, gave it two essential qualities of incorporation. The hon. and learned Member's point of departure stands upon an unequal basis of comparison. He is wrong not only in one respect, but two. If he is not comparing a trade union which possesses some qualities of corporation with corporate bodies, 1126 he has no right to compare a trade union which has some with unincorporate bodies, and to put the proposition before the House in that naked way certainly indicates a want of knowledge of the legal position, or a tendency not to be perfectly accurate in the statement. There are two cardinal distinctions which ought to be present to the mind of everybody who discusses the question. Trade unions have certain corporate qualities. They may act by agents. There is, first of all, this point: There is no body having corporate qualities other than a trade union which is not liable for the action of its agents. The second proposition is that there is no uninacorporate body other than a trade union which cannot be made liable by a representative action for the action of the representative members of it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. H. Terrell) pointed out that you can get a representation order when you are dealing with bodies of persons who are not incorporate—bodies of persons who are numerous and acting in concert—and you can get at the funds of these persons if they have common funds for common objects. First of all, therefore, you have a trade union in the position of having corporate qualities, and it is sought that it should not be liable for its agents, though it acts by its agents. Then you have the alternative provided by the Act of 1906, which makes it impossible to act against a trade union in bulk by getting a representative order against them. This is a complicated question of law. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) says quite mistakenly that a trade union stands in exactly the same position as the Tariff Reform League. Nothing could be further from the fact, and I am certain the Attorney-General would not be responsible for such a statement. It is a totally different question. It is not a question of property.
Not long ago the hon. Member for Leicester suggested that it would be a reasonable thing in dealing with trade unions, where you find a difficulty in getting agreements observed, that the trade unions should give pecuniary guarantees that agreements entered into will be honourably observed. If that is true, that is again a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. If it is fair to insure against a wrong being done by a breach of contract by providing a guarantee, what is there unreasonable in protecting against another wrong which does not rest on con- 1127 tract by insuring that there shall be some substantial remedy? If a wrong is done, the hon. Member who has just spoken says you may go for damages, but you must be content with your verdict. Does that commend itself as a specimen of natural justice to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side? The Attorney-General says that an injunction is the appropriate remedy. Suppose in the course of a political campaign—we are dealing only with political purposes in this Amendment—a gross and grievous libel is published on the eve of an election—and such things have happened— what use would an injunction be? And even so, if a trade union exercises to the full the objects with which it is now capable of being endowed, that is not merely statutory objects but subsidiary objects, it is the easiest thing in the world for a trade union not to be a society for protecting the worker as regards wages and conditions.
It may also make itself not merely the printer but the publisher of a newspaper. That newspaper may be made the medium of the wrong which is being done, and then not only can you not go for damages, but you cannot go for an injunction. You have neither remedy. Does that commend itself to the sense of fairness and honour of hon. Members on that side. The hon. Member for Bolton said, "We are prepared to stand the responsibility. We do not want to be in a different position from anybody else "What does the hon. Member mean? What share of responsibility as regards these matters have trade unions taken to-day? We are not asking to withdraw from them any exceptional immunity that hitherto they have got. All we are asking is that exceptional immunity should not be enlarged. When you come to extend their area of activity you should not extend the immunity. To do so would be a very dangerous practice. This is not a question of limiting the old law. The law has always been the same. I disagree with an expression which has been used on both sides of the House as regards judge-made law. There is no such thing. You approve of the Vacher case and you disapprove of the Osborne case. You call the Osborne case judge-made law.
Those who disagree with the Vacher ease may think it judge-made law and approve very highly of the Osborne decision. There is no such thing as judge-made law; it is merely a question of inter- 1128 pretation and declaration. The law is exactly the same as it was in 1906, when the Trades Disputes Bill was under consideration, and as it was when the law was declared in 1909, by the House of Lords. It is idle to talk about the law as if it had been changed. The law is sought to be altered by this Bill. The law was not altered before except by the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Why is special sacro-sanctity to be given to trade union funds, even when they are misused? I am not suggesting that there will be any misuse, but so long as human nature is human there are bound to be faults which though not commonly or generally approved by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, all the same are to be given special sacrosanctity, so that the funds of trade unions may be placed cut side and beyond the law. I wish to hear one single principle on which such a proposal can be commended or defended. I care not to hear discussions of law upon it but I earnestly urge any speaker on the other side to tell us of anything which will show how it is in accordance with justice and commonsense to place trade-union funds beyond and outside the law. If there is a misuse of the funds, if wrong is done, if agents may act for trade unions while the principals are not responsible, I want to hear something to justify such a course. The granting of power carries with it correlative responsibility. But you are not merely granting power, you are extending power, and you are extending it without any correlative responsibility. It is not a case of power with responsibility; it is power coupled with irresponsibility. Instead of conferring on trade unions power within reasonable limits, you are conferring upon certain people, not liberty, but opportunity, to misuse, if they choose, the power this conferred—an unbridled licence without any sort of responsibility to the law or remedy for those aggrieved. I cannot believe that to be either democratic or in the best interests of society, or even of trade unions themselves. The Amendment is a very necessary one. It does not seek to make trade union funds generally responsible for any wrongs done in their political activities. You have no political funds, or they are inconsiderable. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] And this Amendment comes simply to this, if you have political funds, and if you do a wrong by your agents, then it is altogether beside the point to make the agent and not 1129 the principal responsible, and it adds nothing to the value of the argument to say that you cannot be responsible for some one who is your agent. When you engage in political activity, create political funds, engage in political controversy, make it possible to do wrong; when you take the power to do wrong then will you not take with it, to the extent merely of such political funds as you have at you disposal, the duty of making good to those you wrong by pecuniary damage the wrong that you have done?
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMI have been engaged nearly all my life in connection with trade unions, and I am in constant contact with trade unions personally. Let the House observe the conditions under which trade unions work. You will find, at all events in my business I find, men engaged in the trade union with very little experience, harum-scarum fellows who start an agitation and who are agents it may be of a union. The time of the head officials is generally taken up in putting a stop to the silly nonsensical proceedings of some of their agents. The hon. Member said that there is the general case of the agents of the union embarking in controversy with the employers. I beg to differ from him. My experience is that all those agents want to become Members of Parliament and to displace some of the Gentlemen sitting on these benches. It would be manifestly unfair to make the funds of the trade unions, whether they be political funds or not, liable for any action of those sub-agents. Let the House recognise what agents mean. You have some 900,000 members in the miners' organisation, and you have thousands literally of agents who have no connection with the executive body. It would be manifestly unfair that the political funds or general funds of the union should be liable in respect to irresponsible statements, whether they be libels or language made use of by people in their private capacity. What can you do more to punish the man who makes those statements, if they be libellous, than to sell his home and to give damages which break up the home of the man who commits the wrong, That is how the existing law stands. With regard to the printing of libels, I would point out that for the last three or four years we, who have been interested in the management of industrial concerns, always worked on the assumption and the whole business trading has been carried on 1130 on the assumption that the funds of the trade unions were not liable. I deeply regret that hon. Members opposite for some reason or other, I think unfortunately, seem always to oppose trade unions. I am sure it is not for the purpose of damaging them. It probably arises from the fact that hon. Members opposite generally are not so much connected with trade as we on this side arc. If they were in daily contact with it they would see that most of the difficulties which they anticipate are more theoretical than practical. An hon. Member opposite referred to a case in which a libel was circulated through a newspaper. I assume, as a layman, that the printer would be liable, and that the plant might be attached.
§ Mr. N. CRAIGThe case I put was where a trade union made one of its objects the printing and publishing of a newspaper. Then your remedies would be gone.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI should have thought there would be protection under the regulations made by the Registrar, and that injustice from that direction would be prevented in point of fact. In addition to the printer, the publisher of the newspaper would be liable.
§ Mr. N. CRAIGThe union is its own publisher.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI have no right to speak on a legal point, but I assume that if a libel appeared in a trade union newspaper, I would have a right to apply to the Court against the publisher.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILNormally a newspaper is printed and published by the same person.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThere must be some person responsible for the printing.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHe is the same person. That is the point.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMHe must be a more or less responsible person in the sense that he has a home at any rate. Take the case of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). If he came to my workmen and made an attack upon me; if he incited my workmen, as he incited the women this afternoon, to commit certain unlawful acts; if he incited them to throw a brick at my head, and someone threw one, I presume I could bring, not only a civil, but a criminal action against the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, one has a right to 1131 bring, not only a civil action, but a criminal action if what he complains of goes outside the scope of what is called the ordinary law of libel. Criminal libel, I believe, is a very broad term, and people can be sued for criminal libel for actions that they may by no means consider come within its scope. On the broad question I would say that the object of this fund is to enable Members of Parliament to come to this House. In what position do the trade unions find themselves to-day? If you are going to take this fund for the purpose of paying damages to people who may successfully claim them in a Court of Law, what will happen? I would put it to the House to remember that in actions for libel the law is not quite the same for all the political parties in the State! Mr. Claude Hay, for example, obtained very heavy damages—to the extent of thousands of pounds—from a large number of newspapers for printing a statement that he had spoken in a schoolroom on Tariff Reform. Therefore, if you are going to obtain large damages against trade unionists, what is going to be the effect of it? Many trade union Members of Parliament who attend this House at the present, find the greatest possible difficulty in paying the cost of the registration to enable them to come here and the ordinary expenses entailed by their election. Hon. Members on the other side, I am certain, do not desire to prevent their coming here, and you must put them in a position, seeing they have not capital funds, to come here. They cannot get here by voluntary subscription, because workmen will not subscribe. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) laughs. But I do not care for what object or purpose you want funds for the unions, with a voluntary levy the men will not pay. I have had many years' experience, and what I say is that there are a great many men who are quite willing to take the benefits of the unions, but who do not want to pay for them. In one of the collieries with which I am connected we had constant strikes, which affected the membership of the union. It was not quite a question of men refusing to join the union; those who did refuse were the old members and officials who had been in the union, and the officials had quarrelled. In order to make trouble with the union and the employers they refused to pay the contributions. What happened? The colliery was stopped. We decided that whether the men liked it or not, their 1132 contribution to the union should be stopped at the office: the men were made trade unionists whether they liked it or not. It may be said that that is tyranny.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHear, hear.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIn my experience I have never known a single case where the men have objected to that on principle— not one!
§ Lord ROBERT CECILBecause you would have dismissed him.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMDuring all that time two cases only came within my notice. Both those men had grievances outside the trade unions. They said, "You are stopping our money." "I said, "Take your money, back money and all and go." Every man is in the union; no man objects to it, and every man who has paid into the union has had corresponding advantages in every way. I ask hon. Members opposite to put themselves into the position of these men. Suppose the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University was an agricultural labourer, and suppose he was making contributions for the purposes of his trade union. I ask him what he would say if his neighbour was willing to take all the advantages the union obtained for its members but was unwilling to pay any contribution? I am sure he would peacefully persuade him to join the union which was doing so much to promote his material prosperity. If this Amendment were carried it would take away money from the political funds. An hon. Member opposite made the statement, I am sure quite sincerely, that he did not wish to place any impediment in the way of the trade unions, but if these funds are taken away how can Labour Members, who are not capitalists and have not funds of their own, come to this House? It is said they can come by voluntary levy, but how is that to be done? You will not get the money. Registration and election expenses are heavy, and if Members of the Labour party have to pay them themselves they cannot do it and will be debarred from coming to this House. We have carried on the industry of this country for thirty-five years in the belief that under the law as it exists trade union funds should not be attached. Why is this sudden calamity to come upon the whole industry of this country? How is it that trade unions which year by year are being more and more educated, are quite suddenly going to do this 1133 wrong? I assure hon. Members opposite that having had the widest experience and knowledge of trade unions, that that is not a policy which trade unions with any hope of success would try to accomplish. I do not think the House would be wise to accept too much the legal qualifications and the legal manner in which this question has been put before the House by lawyers. I do not believe that these terrible calamities which are prophesied will occur, and if they do occur, surely the punishment provided will be sufficient.
§ Lord HUGH CECILThe hon. Baronet opposite has made a very interesting speech, but it appeared to me to have only a very shallow bearing on the Amendment under discussion. The hon. Baronet is mistaken if he thinks that those who are supporting this Amendment are animated by a spirit of hostility towards trade unions.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI am quite sure you are not.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt is necessary to emphasise that point, because I noticed the other day it was stated that I had taken part in the election at Flint, and that my speech had produced no particularly good result because of my known hostility to trade unions. As a matter of fact, I did not go to Flint Boroughs, and I have no hostility to trade unions. I believe trade unions are an essential part of our industrial life, and nothing is more desirable than that labour should be organised, and that trade unions should be extended. I warmly sympathise with strikes being made a possibility, and if the Taff Vale decision makes what has been put forward by hon. Members opposite impossible, then it is necessary to render strikes part of the available machinery of industrial organisation. But this Amendment does not deal with it. It is merely a question of whether an exemption from the ordinary law believed to be necessary to carry out labour controversies in trade disputes should be allowed to be extended to cases which have nothing to do with trade disputes, and which affect other things in regard to which wrongs are committed. It is said that the cases contemplated are very rare. I dare say that may be true, and a great deal of argument has been used to show that the case of libel might arise. If those are facts, why are hon. Members opposite reluctant to concede the point? It is a point that does not much matter, and surely the reasonable thing 1134 should be that the ordinary law should prevail and that this doctrine should not be extended to cases which are so rare. We press the matter because we think that it is in the interests of all classes of the community and certainly not least the interest of the poor man that the general principles of law should as far as possible be treated as sacred. We may be sure that a system out of which the Courts of Law are shut will in the end terminate favourably to the rich and unfavourably to the poor. The law is the friend of the poor man rather than the rich man. If you have as in America a lawless system where you have a great wealthy corporation grinding down these people, where the law is put on one side more than is possible hero. We say you ought to maintain the principle of the general sanctity of the law. One of the principles of law is that there should be no special exemption given to particular people, but that the law should be the same for all classes and all persons. The general principle has been tacitly modified for the purpose of trade disputes, and we say the modification ought not to go beyond that, but ought to be confined to that special occasion. It seems to me that is a reasonable argument. It is not by those who happen to sit on the Liberal side of the House coercing their employés to become members of trade unions that you will advance the cause of labour in the end. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) appealed to me. I would rather cut off my hand than treat anyone dependent upon me, as he is not ashamed to say he has treated those dependent upon him. There is not a Member on this side of the House who is familiar with the relations of landlord and tenant or of landlords and their labouring employés who would not hear with amazement and indignation that a free Englishman is constrained under pain of dismissal to join an association, which of his own free will he would not join.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the Noble Lord aware there are Members on that side of the House who prevent their workman joining trade unions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] "Jardine."
§ Sir A. MARKHAMMay I remind the Noble Lord that a man knows the condition of employment. I do not force him to join.
§ Earl WINTERTONOn a point of Order. The hon. Member for West Ham 1135 (Mr. W. Thorne) has accused Members on this side of the House of having prevented persons from joining trade unions. I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to make an accusation of that kind against other hon. Members without he is prepared to gives names and produce evidence in support of his statement?
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the Noble Lord aware that an hon. Member on that side of the He use will sack a man who is a member of a trade union?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese interruptions all seem to be utterly irrelevant.
§ Mr. W. THORNEHe knows it is true
§ Lord HUGH CECILYou do not improve the relations of capital and labour by allowing particular employers to act in this arbitrary fashion. The true security of a labouring man is that he should have his rights according to law and should be protected in those rights against his own mates, employer, and any other human being in the world. What we contend for is the supremacy of law, as we are satisfied the supremacy of law is the great bulwark of liberty. The Labour party are pursuing a very short-sighted policy. I deeply sympathise with the fear many people have that we are on the eve of coming to a great period of plutocracy, when a number of rich men will dominate the world. That is quite a possible danger, and the true tactics against that danger is to stand strictly by the law, as the law is the true bulwark of liberty.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) was not very clear. The Amendment has no kind of connection with the freedom or otherwise of members subscribing to the funds of their unions When he goes into the question of voluntary levies and accuses us of being in favour of voluntary levies, he is not only making an accusation quite unfounded,
§ but is referring to a matter which does not relate to this Amendment. I only want to refer to one thing—a vexed case brought up several times to which we have a perfectly clear answer on this side and no sort of answer on the other side. I moved an Amendment in Committee, and quoted this Committee. A trade union has chosen in the course of an election contest to publish a newspaper and circulate it. It would not in that case be liable in an action for libel. No one could be made liable. It is quite conceivable such a case might arise. My Noble Friend has in general terms referred to the undesirability of putting trade unions in this privileged position, and I only want to ask those who have accused us on these benches of being hostile to the general interests of trade unions to point to a single Amendment or to a single word which has been said which can be considered hostile to those unions in their proper sphere. What the Government and the Labour party are objecting to here is the proposal to put trade unions in exactly the same position as every other body. There is no attack upon their proper functions and no interference with their proper political activity, and those who vote against this Amendment will be voting in favour of a form of privilege which will eventually land trade unions in this country in the same position as the great corporations in America are in at the present time. Whenever individuals attempt to arrogate to themselves functions and positions which belong to other people they are eventually destroyed by the general good sense of the community, and that is what will happen to the trade unions if they persist in their present attitude.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 83: Noes. 259.
1139| Division No. 560.] | AYES. | [11.10 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cator, John | Glazebrook, Cant. Philip K. |
| Amary, L. C. M. S. | Cautley, Strother | Goldman, C. S. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Cave, George | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Gretton, John |
| Barnston, Harry | Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Boyton, James | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Cralk, Sir Henry | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Nobler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Butcher, John George | Fleming, Valentine | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Campion, W. R. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Carlile, Sir Hildred | Gibbs, George Abraham | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Hunt, Rowland | Mount, William Arthur | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Peel, Captain R. F. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Perkins, Walter F. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Peto, Basil Edward | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Knight, Captain Eric (Ayshford) | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.) | Pryce-Jones, Col E. | Winterton, Earl |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Rees, Sir J. D. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Macmaster, Donald | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sandys, G. J. | |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Starkey, John Ralph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Leslie Scott and Mr. Hills. |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Swift, Rigby | |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Talbot, Lord E. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Fitzgibbon, John | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Addison, Dr. C. | France, Gerald Ashburner | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Gill, A. H. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gladstone, W. G. C. | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Alden, Percy | Glanville, H. J. | Manfield, Harry |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Goldstone, Frank | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Allen, Rt, Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Armitage, Robert | Griffith, Ellis J. | Martin, Joseph |
| Arnold, Sydney | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.) | Meagher, Michael |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Hackett, John | Middlebrook, William |
| Barton, William | Hall, Frederick C. (Normanton) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hancock, J. G. | Molloy, Michael |
| Benn. W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mond, Sir Alfred M. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hardle, J. Keir | Morison, Hector |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Muldoon, John |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Munro, R. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hayward, Evan | Neilson, Francis |
| Brace, William | Hazleton, Richard | Nolan, Joseph |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hinds, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Grady, James |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hodge, John | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hogge, James Myles | O'Malley, William |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Clough, William | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Clynes, John R. | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Shee, James John |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hudson, Walter | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Crooks, William | John, Edward Thomas | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cullman, John | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jowett, Frederick William | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Joyce, Michael | Radford, G. H. |
| De Forest, Baron | Keating, Matthew | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Dillon, John | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Kilbride, Denis | Reddy, M. |
| Doris, William | King, J. (Somerset, North) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Richards, Thomas |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Leach, Charles | Richadson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Levy, Sir Maurice | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Falconer, James | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lynch, A. A. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Ffrench, Peter | McGhee, Richard | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Field, William | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) | Webb, H. |
| Rowlands, James | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Tennant, Harold John | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Thomas, James Henry | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Toulmin, Sir George | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Sheehy, David | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Shortt, Edward | Verney, Sir Harry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wadsworth, J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheoe) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton) | Walters, Sir John Tudor | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim) | Walton, Sir Joseph | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Snowden, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Wardle, George J. | |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Waring, Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | |
| Sutton, John E. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Tuesday).
§ The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."