TRADE DISPUTES BILL. (Hansard, 12 December 1906)

§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords before the noble and learned Lord leaves the Woolsack I desire to present two petitions, one from the Scottish Builders Trade Association and the other from the Yorkshire Glass and Bottle Manufacturers. They petition against the Bill as it now stands, and say that, instead of diminishing, it will tend to increase trade disputes and embitter the relations between employers and employed. And now may I ask the permission of the House to say a few words generally upon the Bill, because I am so deaf that when the Committee stage is proceeding I am afraid I shall not be able to take part in the debate? I, therefore, ask your Lordships' indulgence while I explain the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper. These Amendments are not my own Amendments. They are the Amendments of the Employers' Parliamentary Council. That Council is a very important body. It consists of representatives of the Central Associations connected with the shipping, building, iron, glass, printing, cotton, and other textile trades, slate, lime, and limestone industries, cartage contractors, lightermen and barge owners, merchant tailors, silversmiths, potteries, the Farmers' Federation, and heating and domestic engineers—in fact almost all the trades in the country. The Amendments do not at all alter the intended general character of the Bill. They do not even interfere with picketing, except to a certain extent. They are Amendments principally to secure the liberty of labour. They limit the number allowed to picket to three, but they sanction picketing at all entrances to works; there may be three at each entrance. Employers are quite ready to see every entrance picketed, but they think that not more than three persons should be allowed to picket. On the other hand they wish, and I think they are perfectly right, while sanctioning picketing at the works, to forbid anything of the kind elsewhere. They object to men being picketed at their houses. Beside that, they wish to see the provisions of 274 the Bill restored to the state of the presurrender Bill of the Government. They also wish the funds of trade unions to be divided and the charitable funds to be kept separate from funds for other purposes and to be immune. I think these are Amendments which will commend themselves to your Lordships' favourable consideration. As regards the Bill itself, I think that, as it now stands, it is thoroughly inconsistent with English liberty. Recollect that for every one trade unionist there are nine non-unionists, and therefore this Bill interferes largely with the liberty of those workmen outside the trade unions. Let me quote to your Lordships the description of the Bill which was given by Professor Dicey in his letter to The Times. Professor Dicey speaks of "this astounding Bill," and he says that in it "the policy of privilege is revealed to the public in its full enormity." He states the general effect of the measure as follows— By Clause 4 no trade union would be liable in damages for any tort or wrong done by the union, its agents or servants. As, however, altered at the last moment, the clause now also relieves unions against actions for injunctions and the payment of costs in such proceedings. A trade union, in carrying on a strike, may 'do wrong and fear not. Professor Dicey goes on to state that three privileges are further secured to trade unionists— (1) The penalties on picketing are relaxed, but only in the case of a trade dispute. If x, Y, and Z were to beset the house of A with a view to persuade him to join the Primrose League they might get three months imprisonment with hard labour. (2) Trade unionists would not be liable to an action for persuading others to break contracts. (3) Any combination by trade unionists would not be actionable as a conspiracy, but if the same things were done with a view to inducing a person to join the Primrose League an action would lie. I do not know what course your Lordships are going to take with regard to this Bill, and whether or not you will exercise a wise discretion in amending it I hold in my hand a statement of the penalties that will await you if you do. Mr. William Crooks, M.P., has spoken as follows— In the House of Lords, of all places, labour has triumphed. One thing was manifest in the debate, the enormous power and influence of organised labour in this country. 275 And here comes the threat. Mr. William Steadman, M.P. says— If, by Amendments, the Lords upset the Bill, the second Chamber will get such a shaking as it has never had since 1832. Mr. Snowden, M.P., has declared that— The Peers have more discretion than to amend this measure. I do not know what action your Lordships will take, whether or not you will amend the Bill in the spirit of those splendid words of Lord Bramwell which the noble earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the other night, but which I will now read to the House. Lord Bramwell, on the trial of the persons engaged in the Tailors' Strike of 1867 (Regina v. Druitt) said, in the charge to the Jury— The liberty of a man's mind and will to say how he should bestow himself and his means, his talents, and his industry, was as much a subject of the law's protection as was that of his body. If any set of men agreed among themselves to coerce that liberty of mind and thought by compulsion and restraint they would be guilty of a criminal offence—namely, that of conspiring against the liberty of mind and freedom of will of those towards whom they so conducted themselves. If I know anything of your Lordships' House I am certain you will give no heed whatever to those vapouring statements which I read to you a moment ago by Members of the other House. I hope and trust that you will stand by the principles laid down by Lord Bramwell and amend this Bill accordingly. I am no enemy of labour. God forbid that any man should be so foolish. Forty years ago I was on the Trade Union Commission which led to the legalising of trade unions. I desire to do everything possible in the interests of labour. I had the good fortune to move for a Committee in the other House of Parliament and to carry a Bill which put master and servant on an equal footing, and I am prouder of that than of anything I have done in my life. The result of that was that every trade union throughout the country joined in giving me a dinner and in presenting me with an address which I value among my most precious possessions. I therefore hope that your Lordships will recognise that any suggestions I make are in no way against labour but in the interests of the mass of the labouring classes of this country.