Lords Sitting of 18 February 1913

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in order to facilitate business I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, should your Lordships be willing to grant this power, in what respect the Government propose that it should be used. As I understand, the effect of suspending the Standing Order is to allow the various stages of Bills to be taken on the same day. I need not remind your Lordships that there are several measures of very great importance still before us even at this late hour of the session, and it would be impossible to pass them all through their various stages in one day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships pass this Motion, you will leave yourselves free to dispose of the various stages of a Bill on the same day should you so desire, and thus avoid having to sit on Thursday or Friday of this week. It is merely a matter of passing measures formally through their various stages. The Motion is not moved with a view of depriving your Lordships of any opportunity of discussing important matters should you desire to do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would point out that we are in very unusual circumstances. On ordinary occasions when this Motion has been moved to suspend the Standing Order it has been for a definite purpose—so that, for instance, the Prorogation could take place on a day to be arranged beforehand. There is nothing of that kind in question to-day. The session, as we understand, is to last until March 6 or 7. I must say I think this House should have some regard to its dignity, and not allow measures to be hurried through in this particular way. At any rate, I reserve my freedom to protest against two stages of any Bill being taken on one day in the circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All that the suspension of the Standing Order does is to allow the House, should it desire to do so, to take more than one stage of a Bill on the same day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the understanding that we are not in any way supposed to be committed to take more than one stage of any Bill on the same day, but that we have power to do it if we so desire, perhaps there is no objection to agreeing to this Motion. But I am glad to have the Lord Chancellor's assurance that there is no intention on the part of the Government to press the House to take more than one stage of a Bill on a particular day unless the House wishes to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of law as to objects and powers of trade unions.
1.—(1) The fact that a combination has under its constitution objects or powers other than statutory objects within the meaning of this Act shall not prevent the combination being a trade union for the purposes of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, so long as the combination is a trade union as defined by this Act, and, subject to the provisions of this Act as to the furtherance of political objects, any such trade union shall have power to apply the funds of the union for any lawful objects or purposes for the time being authorised under its constitution.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "statutory objects" means the objects mentioned in section sixteen of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876, namely, the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members.
THE EARL OF DESART*THE EARL OF DESART had two Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1. The first was to omit the words "subject to the provisions of this Act as to the furtherance of political objects"; and the second to add at the end of subsection (1) the words "provided that the funds of the union shall not be applied to the furtherance of political objects or political purposes not being statutory objects unless such objects or purposes are political objects authorised by this Act and subject as to their furtherance to its provisions."
The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name I should like to say, before proceeding to explain what my intention is, that I have no hostility whatever towards this Bill. My sole reason for putting down the Amendments was that there seemed to me to be a certain ambiguity in the wording of the clause. I am sure your Lordships will agree that in a measure of this kind it would be very undesirable that there should be anything on which the Registrar might give a decision which might lead to litigation and appeals, which are not only costly but lead to a good deal of friction. Clause 1 provides that "subject to the provisions of this Bill as to the furtherance of political objects" any trade union shall have power to apply the funds of the union for any lawful objects or purposes for the time being authorised under its constitution. The only specific political objects dealt with by the Bill and to which trade union funds are o be applied under the Bill would be the political objects specified in Clause 3, but I find in Clause 3 the provision that—
"The funds of a trade union shall not be applied, either directly or in conjunction with any other trade union, association, or body, or otherwise indirectly, in the furtherance of the political objects to which this section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects)."
The words in brackets are quite general, and I should have thought that if it was left in that way the provision might be open to all the objections that were raised to the furtherance of the particular political objects as to which special provision is made. It is obvious that statutory objects might in some cases have a political bearing and there might necessarily be a political atmosphere surrounding them. Therefore the statutory objects would, of course, be capable of being supported as quasi-political objects. But if it is the in-
1370
tention to confine the provision to political purposes that might arise necessarily in pursuance of statutory objects, I do not quite see to what other political objects the words in parentheses in Clause 3 could apply, and it is to seek information on that point that I have raised the question. The last thing I should wish to do would be to raise any really controversial question on any point of principle, especially having regard to the circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced. In my long official life I have had a good many ambiguous provisions in Acts of Parliament to interpret, and I thought it was at least desirable, if there is ambiguity in this Bill, that it should, if possible, be cleared up in Committee, and that if any other words are necessary we should agree upon them to-day.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("and") to ("any") in line 11.—(The Earl of Desart.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl has raised a perfectly fair question, and has made his point quite intelligible. I partly covered it in what I said on the Second Reading but the Bill is a difficult one to follow, and without a little explanation it is not easy to understand. When trade unions became subject to the Act of 1871 they strenuously objected to being incorporated, and nobody pressed incorporation upon them. The reason was that they wished to preserve a certain amount of liberty to deal, not merely with the questions with which they were charged to deal, which were questions relating to the regulation of their relations with their employers and among themselves, but also to some extent with benefit questions, and they conceived that they were at liberty to deal with political objects, and they did so deal for thirty years without any interference. Then came the Taff Vale decision and the Osborne judgment, and in the latter case it was decided quite definitely that the doctrine of ultra vires applied to trade unions though they were not incorporated—the doctrine applied because they were regulated by the provisions of a Statute. This came as a surprise to the trade unions and they naturally found themselves in a position of some difficulty, because there had been an immense number of practically innocent things which they had been in the habit of doing as well, but which were all equally prohibited under the Osborne judgment.

1371
This Bill was introduced, not for the purpose of repealing the Osborne judgment as to the right of a trade union to make levies upon members of their body in support of a political candidature to which those members objected, or the furtherance by the expenditure of money of a political cause, but for the purpose of recognising that only under definite restrictions could this be done. The Bill had also another purpose. It was to set trade unions free to do what they had hitherto been in the habit of doing until this decision was given. For instance, take an agitation over the eight hours question. That was a quite legitimate matter for trade unions to interest themselves in, and they often held meetings and issued circulars upon it. Nobody would have taken exception to that, but the broad principle laid down in the Osborne decision was fatal to that. Accordingly, the Bill made provision for two things. First of all, for protecting people in the position of Osborne from being called upon to pay a levy for the furtherance of political objects to which they objected. In that respect the Osborne decision was preserved, with this qualification—that these things were to be allowed in the case of members assenting to them, but that nobody who dissented was to be levied upon for the purpose. The second thing the Bill did was to leave trade unions free to do those things they had done before and to which nobody had objected—as, for instance, to agitate questions connected with hours of labour and so on, which were political, no doubt, but not political in the objectionable sense in which the Osborne question was political.
Accordingly the words in Clause 3, to which Lord Desart has referred and which would recognise and legalise what I may call non-objectionable political objects, were inserted. These words were in the Bill as it was introduced, and were fully discussed on Second Reading in the other House and by common consent accepted. There was, so far as I know, no suggestion of any Amendment to delete them, for the reason I have given—that nobody had any objection to them. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to legalise non-objectionable political objects, but to put restrictions upon those objects which were considered to be objectionable unless done with the consent of those concerned. If the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Earl were carried,
1372
it would have the effect of preventing trade unions from doing a number of harmless things which they have done for the last thirty years, which they still desire to do, and which both sides in the other House agreed they should continue to do.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble and learned Viscount has made the matter quite plain even to the lay mind. But my information as to what took place in the House of Commons does not quite tally with his. Mine came from a very good source, and I was distinctly told that the full meaning of these words had not been apprehended, and that they had not been explained in the sense in which the noble and learned Viscount has now explained them. How it came to pass that so important a point was overlooked I do not pretend to say, but that was the information given me. As I have said, I think the noble and learned Viscount has made the matter plain to the lay mind, and I will repeat in lay language what he has said.
He tells us that for thirty years trade unions believed that political action was within their legal rights. Then came the Osborne judgment, the effect of which was to lay down that political action was ultra vires in the case of all trade unions, whether incorporated or not. The situation then had to be considered in a fresh light. The Government saw that political action might be, as it were, divided into two classes—political action necessary and entirely proper to the statutory objects of a trade union, in fact often scarcely separable from it; and political action which was much more of a Party character and which might have the effect of levying contributions on men with strong political opinions for the prosecution of political views of which they conscientiously disapproved. The Government, therefore, tried to define the objectionable class of politics—I use that word for want of a better—and their definition is to be found in Clause 3; and this objectionable class of politics is allowed to trade unions under certain conditions and where certain precautions have been followed to ascertain whether it is the wish of the majority of the trade union that the trade union should take political action of that sort. All other political action is validated indirectly by the provisions of this Bill.

1373
If that is a correct interpretation of the noble and learned Viscount's statement, may I ask whether he is quite satisfied that the list in Clause 3 entirely covers what can fairly be described as objectionable politics. I confess as a layman that the list does not seem to me to be absolutely full. I can think of one sphere of action, at least, which seems to me to come entirely within the intentions of the Government, and yet, so far as I understand Clause 3, is not included. I allude to the running of a Party newspaper. A newspaper is, I believe, a common feature of a trade union and a very natural and proper one, and I do not say that politics might not be introduced into that newspaper occasionally. That is quite a different thing from running a newspaper the main purpose of which is to advance the doctrines of one political Party, be it Socialist, or Liberal, or Conservative. I only give that as an instance. I think the House ought to be grateful to the noble and learned Earl who has put down this Amendment, because it has given an opportunity for the discussion of what is really an important point. We all wish to see this Bill become the closing chapter, for the time being at any rate, in the series of trade union legislation which has been such a burning question. It is quite unnecessary to go into that matter, with which your Lordships are all familiar. But let us not, in endeavouring to agree upon a closing chapter, leave sufficient fuel for future flame.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has stated with admirable clearness the fashion in which what he calls the closing chapter of a very difficult controversy has been brought together, and I agree with him that there is no absolute certainty that we have put everything into the chapter or excluded everything that should be excluded from it. What is practicable has been done, As to his first question, whether this matter was discussed in another place, I may say that it was discussed in the Attorney-General's speech in opening the Bill. The explanation by the Attorney-General of these words and of the character of the other political objects will be found in Vol. 41 of the House of Commons Hansard, columns 2978 to 2980. Then the noble Earl asked whether I was quite certain that we had covered everything. My answer to that must be that one cannot be quite certain
1374
in a matter of this kind. We have taken the obvious things, and have borne in mind that there are other things which if you try to bring in you will do a great deal of harm which you did not intend. As to the running of a newspaper, it is impossible to say whether a trade union newspaper is political or non-political. You never can have a trade union newspaper which would not have a certain political element in it, yet in the main it may be a newspaper absolutely necessary for trade union purposes in their main legitimate sense. The controversy as to hours of labour may be political, so also may be controversies about wages and other matters. I can conceive that the question of the nationalisation of railways might be raised in such a newspaper. You could not keep these questions out, and yet you could not say that the newspaper was political. All I can say is that every effort was made to sweep in the things to which objection is taken, and there has been a sort of general assent that rough justice has been done in the matter. That it is more than rough I will not pretend, but as far as we can see the ground has been covered.
THE EARL OF DESART: I quite follow and appreciate what has been said. But what struck me was that the words in parentheses in Clause 3 go rather too far and do not seem quite consistent with Clause 1, which appears to limit the political objects. The political objects referred to in the words in parentheses could not be outside the purposes to which the funds might be applied under the constitution of the trade union.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; but they might be outside the objects laid down by the Act of 1871, and that is the importance of the words.
THE EARL OF DESART: My point was whether there should not be some modification of the words in Clause 3 which would meet the difficulty to which attention has been drawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. The words in Clause 3 come in a clause which is restrictive of the application of the funds. It says that to certain objects the funds are not to be applied except without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects. If the society authorises that, it can be done freely; but if not, these objects are not within the powers of the trade union because the doctrine of ultra vires is not wholly repealed.
THE EARL OF DESART: I follow that; but I rather doubted whether the drafting was quite clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think a word of protest should be uttered against the statement of the noble and learned Viscount that every attention had been paid to this Bill in another place, and that by general consent a proper line had been drawn. I do not think that under the modern conditions in which business is discussed in another place that can be said of any Bill which is passed by Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Bill was fortunate enough to have fourteen days unbroken consideration in Grand Committee, a rather rare thing for any Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am aware of that, and I know that a number of Unionist Members of Parliament devoted a great deal of time to it and with great success. I was glad to hear the well-deserved compliment paid to those Members by the noble and learned Viscount in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. But I venture to say that consideration in Grand Committee is not the same thing as consideration by the whole House of Commons. The Report stage in the House of Commons was not of that extended order of which the noble and learned Viscount speaks. He has asked us to believe that on the whole the best line has been drawn, but it is almost impossible to distinguish in principle such a thing as the running of a newspaper which is partly political and strongly infected with political colour from the other heads which are included in Clause 3. As my noble friend Lord Selborne said just now, we are far from being so arrogant as to think that we have thought of all the possibilities which might arise. I can conceive, for example, that it would not be included under Clause 3 to pay salaries to gentlemen engaged in agitation of a highly political character. I do not say that they must not have industrial functions as well, for I rather think that that general rule covers all these questions—that the expenditure must be in the main industrial, more industrial than anything else; but still the agitators who might be paid out of the finances of the trade union under this Bill might be very strongly political in character.
1376
Your Lordships should remember that it is not safe to think of trade unions as merely labour organisations. That is the usual view; but if anything is certain in this world it is this, that we are on the eve of even greater struggles between Capital and Labour than we have already seen. That is a most deplorable thing, but I think that most of us foresee that that is going to happen. It is quite as easy for employers to form a trade union as it is for workmen, and undoubtedly we shall see very strong employers' organisations created in this country in order to indulge in this most deplorable industrial warfare. Therefore when we are taking precautions to see that those who run trade unions do not use the power of trade unions unduly for political objects, it must not be thought that we are merely trying to restrict the working classes. Those precautions will be equally effective in restricting the employer classes from undue political action. Therefore we may take ourselves to be occupying a purely equitable and judicial position. Looked at from that point of view it does seem to me that to allow a trade union to run, let us say, a political newspaper out of and with the money of political opponents who are practically compelled to subscribe is, on the face of it, a very grave injustice.
The noble and learned Viscount says that if we begin to consider those things we shall do more harm than good. I confess I am not convinced by his reasoning. Whether my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches thinks it necessary to try and force this Amendment on the Government it is for him to determine. I do not for myself feel compelled to take that step. I hope that before we reach Clause 3, and certainly before we reach the next stage of the Bill, the noble and learned Viscount will consider whether we cannot extend the Bill still further logically on the same principle as the other provisions of the Bill so as to make it more effective in carrying out its purpose.
THE EARL OF DESART: In view of the discussion that has taken place I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and also the consequential Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Restriction on application of funds for certain political purposes.
3.—(1) The funds of a trade union shall not be applied, either directly or in conjunction with any other trade union, association, or body, or otherwise indirectly, in the furtherance of the political objects to which this section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects), unless the furtherance of those objects has been approved as an object of the union by a resolution for the time being in force passed on a ballot of the members of the union taken in accordance with this Act for the purpose by a majority of the members voting; and where such a resolution is in force, unless rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing—

(a) That any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund (in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union), and for the exemption in accordance with this Act of any member of the union from any obligation to contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance with this Act that he objects to contribute; and

(b) That a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union (except in relation to the control or management of the political fund) by reason of his being so exempt, and that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union.

(2) If any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may, if he considers that such a breach has been committed, make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances; and any such order of the Registrar shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal and shall not be removable into any court of law or restrainable by injunction, and on being recorded in the county court, may be enforced as if it had been an order of the county court.
(3) The political objects to which this section applies are the expenditure of money—

(a) on the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or to any public office, before, during, or after the election in connection with his candidature or election; or

(b) on the holding of any meeting or the distribution of any literature or documents in support of any such candidate or prospective candidate; or

(c) on the maintenance of any person who is a member of Parliament or who holds a public office; or

1378

(d) in connection with the registration of electors or the selection of a candidate for Parliament or any public office; or

(e) 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 this Act.

The expression "public office" in this section means the office of member of any county, county borough, district, or parish council, or board of guardians, or of any public body who have power to raise money, either directly or indirectly, by means of a rate.
(4) A resolution under this section approving political objects as an object of the union shall take effect as if it were a rule of the union and may be rescinded in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as such a rule.
(5) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union and not the unions; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component union from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY*THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (1), after the word "vote" [" taken in accordance with this Act for the purpose by a majority of the members voting"], to insert the words "such majority comprising not less than twenty-five per cent. of all the members of the union." The noble Earl said: I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that I move this Amendment in no spirit of opposition or hostility to this Bill. On the contrary, it would be absolutely out of accord with the traditions of your Lordships' House if any Amendment were carried dealing destructively with a measure which concerns so largely the working classes of this country. Your Lordships have always given special attention to all matters which concern the improvement of the conditions and the happiness of working men. At the same time I think it will be admitted that this Bill is capable of certain improvements, more especially with regard to machinery. This measure has been brought to your Lordships' House upon the more or less tranquil waters of mutual consent. Far be it from me to disturb that state of things. At the same time I think we can make the Bill more workable and possibly more just. Allusion has been made to the

1379
Osborne judgment. I do not propose to dwell upon that controversial matter. It does not concern the Amendment. But I should like to say, in passing, that no one deplores more than I do the misapprehension with regard to that judgment which exists among members of trade unions, who think that it was your Lordships' House as a legislative body which gave that decision.
I have had the privilege on many occasions of talking to members of trade unions in every part of the country—men of the highest intelligence, the strongest determination, and the most firm purpose—and while they have told me that they are, of course, willing to subscribe to every movement which has for its object the betterment of the conditions of the working classes, they protest most strongly against the tendency which is growing daily of power passing into the hands of a few. I admit that this is a tendency which we find in every society and in every concern. It is not confined to trade unions; but it seems to me that this tendency is all the more strong in cases where it is alleged that the particular society or organisation is managed on a democratic basis. Under this Bill we are going to confer entirely new functions upon trade unions, functions which, by the decision in the Osborne case, were clearly ultra vires, and I think we ought to do everything in our power to secure that the resolution referred to in the subsection with which I am dealing, which has to be passed on a ballot of the members of the union, should receive an adequate vote in its favour. A great deal of apprehension is felt in giving these large powers to such bodies as trade unions, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give us some assurance that he will at all events give his consideration to the principle for which I am contending.
This Amendment is in no opposition whatever to the principle of the Bill. It does not alter the Bill in a single detail. It merely provides that where a resolution is passed in favour of creating a political fund, that resolution shall receive the support of at least twenty-five per cent. of the total members of the union. I think that will be a safeguard. At all events it is all we can hope for; and I think it will greatly conciliate public opinion and public sympathy in favour of this measure. Your Lordships are members of many
1380
clubs, and you must be well aware that in the case of every club or similar institution when any drastic change is proposed it is clearly laid down that there must either be so many members voting or there must be so many present—a mere majority is not sufficient to bring about a drastic change; and in your Lordships' House no Division is valid unless there are thirty Peers present. That admits the principle that where you are going to bring about a drastic change you must at all events have a representative majority present and voting. I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. All I wish for, and all the Amendment seeks to secure, is that when these tremendous changes are about to take place, the trade unions should be given to understand that these changes cannot be made effective unless they have the support of a full and representative majority of the members of the trade union.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("voting") insert ("such majority comprising not less than twenty-five per cent. of all the members of the union").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I venture to appeal to the noble Earl not to press this Amendment. This is one of those points which is attended with the greatest difficulty and about which there is the keenest feeling. It was discussed fairly fully in Grand Committee, and in the end the point was not pressed. The reason is this. The occasions on which there is a ballot are occasions on which you are dealing with a trade union with 70,000, 80,000, or 100,000 members, and, as always happens in the case of a body of this kind, in many cases only a minority of the members take the trouble to fill up and return the ballot papers. But it is by no means to be assumed that those who do not return the ballot papers are adverse to the proposal. On the contrary, they are quite ready to go with the swim, but they are not keen enough to take the trouble to record their vote; and the result of their abstention, if you try to fix a quorum, is that your machinery may be very much hampered. The result of long practical experience was that the working class representatives in the Grand Committee protested very strongly against a statutory quorum being inserted, and that view was taken by the Committee.

1381
The difficulty, of course, is this, that you send out your ballot papers to people who may be living 100 or 200 miles off, and the working classes are like other classes—they do not take the trouble to read everything that is sent to them, still less do they take the trouble to answer all communications; but, as I say, that does not mean that they have not strong opinions and that those who have not voted are not in accord with the policy of the trade union. It only means that in practice you would find it extremely difficult to get trade union business transacted at all if a provision of the sort which the noble Earl has moved were inserted. Moreover, I do not think it would be any precaution if it were inserted. As in a great many cases the Amendment would render the provision unworkable, and as there is this very great feeling about it, I would ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount is always appealing to the course of the discussions in another place. I do not complain of that in any way, but it is a little difficult to be quite sure that he remembers everything which took place in the other House. I would remind him of one important circumstance in connection with this subject which he omitted to mention—namely, that the Amendment which was discussed at any rate on the Report stage provided a much larger quorum than that suggested by my noble friend in the Amendment now before the House. The quorum suggested in the discussion which took place in the other House was at least fifty per cent. If I am not mistaken, it was that the majority was to contain fifty per cent.—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 50 per cent. of the possible voters.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: That was certainly a very high figure. My noble friend Lord Malmesbury is content with a very much humbler suggestion. He asks that the majority should be twenty-five per cent. Then the noble Viscount says that it must be assumed, or he almost says it must be assumed, that everybody who does not vote is more or less in favour of the proposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The majority of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that argues a very great power of assumption on the part of the noble and learned Viscount. We know what the condition of things is in some trade unions. It cannot be said in the case of some trade unions that members vote against the policy of the leaders without a considerable amount of trepidation. There is an element of, I will not call it intimidation, but an element which produces timidity on the part of those who differ from the policy of the leaders. In a trade union such as I describe, which is the more likely—that the people who do not vote are in favour of the proposal, or are against it? I confess I think in those cases it is more likely that the people who refrain from voting are against it. That would be the ordinary resource of human nature, and it would be rash to assume, as the noble and learned Viscount has done, that the majority of the people who do not vote are necessarily in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I confess that if we were looking at this subject purely by itself I should be in favour of Lord Malmesbury's proposal.
It seems to me very reasonable that there should be some form of quorum. The noble Viscount is aware that in cases where two trade unions propose to amalgamate, which is more or less analogous as it has to do with the conduct of trade unions, no vote for amalgamation is valid unless there is a far higher quorum voting than that proposed by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. But the noble and learned Viscount opposes the Amendment, and it is a question, therefore, whether it is in the public interest that my noble friend should press it. I certainly should be averse to our having the appearance of dictating to the trade unions how their own business is to be carried on, and rather than that we should incur that charge I would strain a point in the other direction. Therefore if the trade unions are fully resolved that they would rather be left to decide by what quorum they would be governed in a matter of this kind, perhaps my noble friend would not think it necessary to press the Amendment. I confess I am sorry that the Government are not able to accept the Amendment, as it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: I am sorry that His Majesty's Government take this view with regard to my noble friend's Amendment. It is no doubt a

1383
technical point, but it seems to me highly desirable that a provision should be inserted to secure that the vote carrying such a resolution is a substantial one. When there is a question of a strike it is always insisted upon that a certain large proportion of the members should be in favour of it before the strike is promoted. It does seem a pity that this principle should not be adopted in this Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I quite admit that the noble Earl, in making this proposition, has couched it in a mild form. The figure that he names for this purpose is certainly not a high one if the noble Earl's premises are accepted, but I am bound to say that I think there is great substance in what my noble and learned friend behind me has said of the presumption which it is reasonable to draw in the case of an inquiry of this kind from a great mass of people as to the probable views of those who do not record a vote. In this House we may, I think, be led astray by the well-known principle which we adopt, semper prœsumitur pro negante—that where a person does not come forward to declare his assent to any kind of new proposal he may be presumed to dissent from it. In inquiries from great masses of people such as those contemplated under the Bill or such as would be contemplated under any scheme of popular Referendum, it would, I think, be altogether inaccurate to argue that those who do not take the trouble to support a particular proposition are thereby to be considered as opposed to it. Far more often, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, in these particular cases those who would like to see a particular change made would not go through the trouble, even though it may not be a serious trouble, of sending in the paper which would record their assent. In all the circumstances, therefore, and particularly in view of the appeal which the noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite has made, I hope the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question in illustration of what he has said. I think there is a real distinction between this House standing up for some great principle—such as the right of any
1384
trade unionist to hold his own political opinion—and laying down the exact way in which the internal economy of the trade union should be conducted. It is entirely in respect of that method of conducting its business that the noble Viscount has based his objection. He says there is this matter of practical inconvenience, and that experience has shown that those who do not vote are generally in favour of the policy proposed by their leaders. A great deal might be said on the other side, but I do not propose to argue that now. What I want to know is this. Has not the practice of the trade unions themselves often—I do not say always—been exactly the opposite to that indicated by the noble and learned Viscount? I am told that it is not an uncommon thing to find, as part of the constitution of a trade union, that its rules may not be altered except by the vote of a two-thirds majority of the members. If that is the rule of a trade union in respect of the rules which it has itself made quite without Parliamentary guidance, surely it argues that they do not think it is a difficult thing to acquire that number of votes when a change of rule is proposed; and as nothing is here dealt with except a change of rule, I do not quite see why, if my information is correct, there should be such a very wide departure from a common trade union practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the case of amalgamation, which was referred to by the noble Marquess, it is quite true that there is a far higher quorum. I think that is required under the Act of 1871. The reason, of course, is this, that by amalgamation you put an end to the persona of the trade union. It ceases to exist and becomes part of a new body, and as it is putting an end to itself it is right that that should be so. In the other cases my impression is that when it does occur it is, as a rule, limited to an alteration in the regulations which relate to some organic matter connected with the constitution. As regards the general power of altering rules, not only is the matter attended with great difficulty when these formalities have to be gone through, but by an Amendment in my name we give the Registrar power to make a rule notwithstanding these difficulties, and that is done on the advice of the Registrar because the difficulty of getting this done with the present requirement in force is very great

1385
The matter has been considered in consultation with the permanent officials who deal with this question, and the difficulty which some trade unions have found in altering their rules owing to this process is what has driven us to this. Experience has shown that the difficulties are enormous if you try to get a statutory quorum, and, as far as alteration of rules goes, with this provision you would never have them altered at all unless there was some great tumult which called everybody into activity.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble and learned Viscount admits that there are two classes of trade union rules—the strict and the lax. His Majesty's Government prefer the lax.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two classes—workable and unworkable; and His Majesty's Government prefer the workable.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount cannot accept the Amendment, but in view of what has fallen from the noble Marquess below me I do not propose to ask the House to divide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I move, after the words "That a member," at the commencement of paragraph (b) of Clause 1, to add the words "who is opposed to the policy of the union or." This Amendment is a plea for some security for reasonable personal freedom. The subsection which we are now on is that which provides that a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from the benefits. There is another class of case in which I think a member ought to have some protection. I will put a case which I believe has actually occurred in practice. Sometimes members of a trade union run a political candidate. I will put a suppositious case. It may be that that candidate is standing in the Labour interest or even in the Socialist interest. Suppose there is in that constituency two other candidates, a Unionist candidate and a Liberal candidate. Surely the member of the trade union should have the right to appear, if he chooses to do so, upon the platform of either the Unionist or the Liberal candidate
1386
—it does not seem to me to matter for this purpose whether the member of the trade union is a Liberal or a Conservative. He ought not to be put at a disadvantage because be wants to stand to his own political creed as opposed to the particular shade of politics of the candidate whom the majority of his trade union seem to favour. That is the object of this Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("member") insert ("who is opposed to the policy of the union or").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No Amendment is necessary to give protection to a member of a trade union doing what the noble Lord has said. There is in the trade union constitution or in the powers of the trade union nothing which can enable them to interfere with any member who takes any line he likes about politics. What this Bill does is to enable the member to say that his money shall not be expended in promoting political objects to which he objects. But any member of the union who misbehaves himself and against whom the rules had to be enforced would have an opportunity, if the words which the noble Lord suggests were inserted in the subsection, of saying, "My objection is to the political policy of the union," and he would be enabled thereby to bring the matter before the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who could not possibly determine the point whether the member had been a habitual violator of perfectly legitimate rules and whether the trade union had been acting within their proper powers in dealing with him. If the member objects to the political objects of the trade union his proper course is to refuse to allow the funds, as far as he contributes to them, to be used for political purposes, and that the Bill enables him to do. But to give him power to bring the union before the Registrar on every occasion when he objects to the policy of the union is to give a power which is too wide, and would be, I think legitimately, strongly resented by the trade unions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The political objects are actually defined in this clause. The clause is a long, difficult, and intricate one, but in subsection (3) the political objects to which the clause applies are defined, and the first of them is—

1387
"the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or to any public office."
Take the case which I have ventured to suggest. Suppose the union is running a candidate of its own, and some one of its members desires to support a candidate of another complexion. Is he not liable to be penalised because he has taken that action? If the majority of the trade union choose to say that he has acted against them, I see nothing in this clause to protect him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely the noble Lord's words go beyond any object which can be gathered from what he has just said. The policy of the union might have reference to purely labour questions. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would seem almost to imply that any member however much opposed he was to the general objects and purposes of the trade union, might have free leave to say so and at the same time draw all the benefits which the union could give him. I am certain that the noble Lord does not mean that, but his words seem to me to mean nothing else.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that looked at purely on the merits it is difficult to see, in this country of free speech, that any member should be penalised merely because he opposed the policy of the trade union. Any one listening to the observations of the noble Marquess would think it was a self-evident proposition that any member who opposed the policy of the union should not be entitled to the benefits. I should have thought that hitherto it was a self-evident proposition that a man might say whatever he liked within the law, and that so long as he fulfilled his obligations to the trade unions he should be entitled to the benefits of the trade union. On strict justice and equity it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Balfour is perfectly right. My objection to his Amendment is that it seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill has to do with certain permission given to use the funds of the trade union for certain purposes. Those funds are contributed by people of different political complexions, and it is held by the Government, equally with ourselves, that members ought not to be called upon to contribute to a fund for promoting political objects
1388
to which they are themselves opposed. My noble friend by his Amendment takes it outside the question of funds. I think that is going beyond the scope of the Bill, and I should be reluctant that we should do that at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to add, at the end of subsection (2), the words standing in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, after ("court") insert ("In the application of this provision to Scotland the sheriff court shall be substituted for the county court, and 'interdict' shall be substituted for 'injunction' ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, moves the Amendment standing in his name, I want to ask a question on paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of this clause. I know that the language of this Bill has been minutely criticised, but I must say I think there will be a great deal of practical difficulty in interpreting paragraph (e) and giving it any effectual meaning. It says giving the political objects to which this restrictive clause applies include the expenditure of money "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 this Act." You have to turn back to subsection (2) of Clause 1 to find out what "statutory objects" are. They are set out there, and they include "the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters." The expression "the holding of political meetings" does not carry you any further, and it seems to me that any meeting to deal with these things may be, and almost must be, political. Suppose, for example, a trade union hires a hall for the delivery of an address by Mr. Sydney Webb, how can any one decide whether or not that is a political meeting without carefully reading through the address and forming an opinion as to whether or not the main purpose of the address is with regard to the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters or some

1389
other statutory object, or whether it is merely for the purpose of putting forward a scheme of Socialism, or a new distribution of Capital, or something of that sort? I should be glad therefore to know how it is proposed in practice to construe this clause, for I confess I see great difficulty in saying when a thing is political and when it is not, and when it is mainly a statutory object. I should have thought it would be better to limit it, as it is limited in paragraph (b), to the holding of a meeting for the selection or the support of a particular candidate for Parliament, or in support of a political Party if you like. But to apply it to the holding of political meetings of any kind or the distribution of political literature seems to me to introduce enormous difficulties. I do not know whether literature advocating any political matter to the adherents of a political Party is not necessarily political.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with my noble and learned friend that this clause is open to the criticism which he has directed against it, but I know of no way in which, in framing some kind of restriction of this description, you could find more apt words. The provision may be found to be rather strict as against trade unions and there may arise the difficulty to which the noble Earl has alluded, but all I can say is that the representatives of the trade unions are willing to work under it, and as it is a further restriction in the direction of the Osborne judgment we may very well leave it to their judgment. If they think they can work under it, well and good; let them try.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The object of the new paragraph (f) which I move to add to subsection (3) of Clause 3 is to place the funds of a trade union for the publication or circulation of a newspaper having any political purpose under the same restrictions as are applied to the other political purposes contained in this clause. The preceding paragraph, paragraph (e), supplies those restrictions to 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 this Act." That is the industrial relations as defined in subsection (2) of Clause 1. The use of the expression "distribution" appears to indicate that those restrictions are only to be applied
1390
to the distribution free of charge of political literature. In that case it would be open to a trade union, as a subsidiary object, to run or join in running a newspaper having political objects.
If your Lordships turn to Clause 1 you will see that it is quite clear that a trade union is to have power to apply the funds of the union for any lawful objects or purposes for the time being authorised under its constitution. The running of a newspaper having a political purpose is clearly a lawful object. If the Amendment which was moved just now by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Desart, had been accepted, I would hot have moved this Amendment. The point would have been covered. But how did the noble and learned Viscount opposite meet that Amendment? He refused it. He put forward two arguments. First of all, he said that all political objects which could be considered objectionable by any trade union member had been brought into this Bill under the restrictions which are mentioned in Clause 3, and that the Government really could not deal with the non-objectionable political objects. Then the noble and learned Viscount put forward an alternative argument—or, if I may use the expression, I think he tried to hedge—by pointing out that it would be very difficult to differentiate between a newspaper having a political purpose and a newspaper run for trade union purposes only. I do not know that there would be any objection to a trade union running a newspaper having a political purpose if it were not for the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, under which, so far as trade union funds are concerned, there is bestowed upon trade unions an unrestricted right to offend against the law of libel. I think that answers one of the arguments which were put forward by the noble and learned Viscount as to whether the running of a newspaper can be considered objectionable. It depends entirely, of course, upon what use they make of that newspaper. There is no reason to think that the powers given under this Bill to trade unions will be abused; but is it right to give a monopoly of such powers to one class of the community?
Let me put before your Lordships what could happen. Whenever an election was fought hereafter, a trade union candidate, backed by a trade union newspaper, would be able to enter upon that political contest

1391
armed with a weapon which would be denied to his political opponents. The trade union newspaper would be able to slander or libel its political opponents with complete immunity so far as the trade union funds were concerned. The Conservative or Liberal candidate, backed no doubt by the Conservative or Liberal Press, as the case might be, would not be able to make use of the same weapon. The newspapers in question would be liable to be let in for heavy damages if they did anything of the sort. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will presently say that you can bring an injunction against the printer, or the publisher, or the individual concerned in regard to the libel. Even in that case, what does it amount to? It is usually considered that the only effective way to prevent libels being used is by the fear of heavy damages, and I do not see that there would be much chance of obtaining any damages from the individual in question. But in any case, under Clause 1 as I read it, the trade union would be able, not only to publish and run a political newspaper, but would be able to print it as well as own it, and I am not at all sure that you would be able to bring a civil action against them in such a case. I think it is only reasonable that the running of a newspaper having any political purpose should have the same restrictions attached to it as are specified in Clause 3 in regard to other political objects in order that those members who object to the political purposes should not be forced to contribute towards them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, after ("Act") insert:
("or
"(f) on the publication or circulation of any newspaper having any political purpose.").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has raised the question of the law as it has stood since the decision in the Vacher case, and he has said, truly enough, that a great many people feel that there ought to be some restriction upon the power of doing the things which were done in the Vacher case. But what he proposes would be practically nugatory. In the first place, in Vacher's case it was not a newspaper at all, but a circular, which a trade union can issue now. It was a circular—and I am assuming that it was libellous for the purposes of this discussion—relating to the regulation of relations
1392
between employers and workmen, and therefore you cannot say that it was ultra vires even as the law at present stands. In the second place, to put in the proposed paragraph (f) and say that a political newspaper shall be included under the head of things as to which there is this restriction is to give very little protection after all, because the restriction is only a restriction exempting people from contributing if the majority decides against them. In the third place, the running of a newspaper may be a very proper thing for a trade union to do, still more the circulation of a newspaper. For instance, there is a new Labour newspaper which deals with trade union subjects and contains information of great interest to trade unionists, and they may well desire to spend some money in circulating it. Particular unions may have under consideration questions which this newspaper is discussing, and I think it would be very hard to put a restriction on them in that respect. On the other hand, it is impossible to say that that newspaper would not have a political tendency. It probably would have Labour tendencies; but how to say of any newspaper, even when it is confined to the most rigid of trade union purposes, that it had not any political purpose—which is the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment—puzzles me. I feel that to add this paragraph would do no good but would cause a great deal of feeling and irritation and would be looked upon as a further restriction imposed on trade unions. It would not protect the public in the least from such things as arose in the Vacher case. I venture to hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not think that any purpose that he has in view would be substantially gained by it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this Amendment does not touch the question of the immunity of trade unions under the Vacher decision in the matter of libel. It is concerned exclusively with the purpose of Clause 3. We are quite willing to give the Government credit for having done their best to meet a very difficult and complicated state of affairs. We are not prepared, however, to credit them, without proof, with infallibility. We acknowledge the purpose they have in view, and they have admitted that we have met them fairly. The question your Lordships have to decide is whether this is not a legitimate

1393
extension of Clause 3, or, if I may put it in another way, whether the Government have not left a big loophole even in their own scheme. If a trade union wants to have a newspaper with a political purpose it would not be precluded from having it by the insertion of my noble friend's words. On the contrary, it could have it by a ballot at which only five members of the trade union voted if three of them voted in favour of it—not a very difficult or onerous condition under which to become authorised to run a newspaper having a political purpose. But, further, if these words were inserted and if on a ballot the trade union decided to conduct such a paper, a trade unionist who objected to the politics of this paper would be allowed to say so and to claim exemption from the forced contribution for the support of that newspaper.
I say, and I say with some confidence, that compared with the other matters mentioned in Clause 3, where a trade unionist may claim exemption from enforced payment, there is none so important as this question of a newspaper. By paragraph (a) the trade unionist may claim exemption on the ground that he does not wish to pay for the expenses of a candidate or prospective candidate. By paragraph (b) he may object to the distribution of literature in support of such a candidate. By paragraph (c) he may object to maintain a Member of Parliament holding opinions different from his own. Under paragraph (d) he may object to be compelled to pay for the registration of electors or the selection of such a candidate for Parliament; and by paragraph (e) he may object to be forced to pay for political meetings or for the distribution of political literature. But the most important of all literature is left out. Let us put a concrete case. Suppose that it was my unfortunate lot to have to make my choice between a compulsory contribution to the candidature of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to the maintenance and upkeep of the Daily News, personally I should not hesitate a moment; I should prefer to contribute to the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if such a provision as this is not put in you may force a Conservative trade unionist to pay for the support of a newspaper holding the most extreme Radical or Socialist opinions; and, although less likely, the converse might be the case. There is nothing more probable than that a Liberal trade unionist might be
1394
forced to pay for the support of a newspaper which was always in opposition to the Liberal Party and which vilified that Party on every occasion. He would then be in the same position as Mr. Osborne. Can it be right that a man, because he happens to be a trade unionist for industrial purposes, should be compelled to contribute to the support of such a newspaper if he does not wish to do so?
If the noble and learned Viscount will permit me to say so, he really has not made out any case against the Amendment. All he has said is that a newspaper for bona fide trade purposes will no doubt contain political matter. I quite agree. But the words in the Amendment are, "the publication or circulation of any newspaper having any political purpose." That is obviously that it should be directed to the permanent and constant support of certain political views; not that it occasionally touches on political subjects but that it should have a definite reason for its existence in the furtherance of a certain class of political opinion. Why should a trade unionist be compelled to support such a newspaper? If the noble and learned Viscount's objections are valid here, I think he will himself admit that they are also valid against all the provisions of paragraph (e). I think he has proved too much. If paragraph (e) is possible and just, then the proposed paragraph (f) is more possible and more just. I think the noble and learned Viscount must really find another reason for refusing to incorporate in this Bill what on the face of it seems an elementary provision of fairness.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Without entering into the whole question raised by the noble Earl who has just sat down, I may point out that as a matter of fact paragraph (e) is very different in its terms from the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore. The noble Earl's Amendment is couched in these words, "on the publication or circulation of any newspaper having any political purpose." I cannot believe that, in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, that would be taken to mean the same thing or anything like the same thing as "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

1395
is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act." Whether the noble Earl would think his Amendment worth having if those words were added to this particular Amendment I cannot say. But that, of course, would mean, as it would mean in the case of political literature, that if a pamphlet, or in the noble Earl's case a newspaper of a regular trade union type, although its politics might be marked and obvious, could be described as being mainly given up to trade union purposes, then the provision in the paragraph would not apply. I do not say that my noble and learned friend would agree to such a change in the noble Earl's Amendment being made but I think it is well to point out that his Amendment as it stands is not on all fours with the other provisions in the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Marquess was at pains to show that there was a qualification in paragraph (e) which my noble friend has not inserted in his proposed paragraph (f). I listened to the noble Marquess with the greatest attention, but all my hopes were dashed to the ground because at the end he indicated that his noble and learned friend would not be prepared to accept the Amendment even if the qualification were put in. I am not sure that the noble Marquess did not rather waste his time, if I may venture to say so, in the very subtle and acute argument he addressed to your Lordships' House when he added the postscript at the end which rendered his argument nugatory. If at a future stage of the Bill the noble Marquess thinks that the qualification ought to be inserted, he will no doubt make such a proposition to your Lordships' House, and I am quite sure that all of us, at any rate on this side of the House, will have great pleasure in considering it. In the meantime we think that a case has been made out for my noble friend's Amendment, and we ask your Lordships to insert it in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name is purely a drafting one. The clause provides that the expression "public office" means the office of member of any county, county borough, district, or parish council, or board of guardians, or of any public body who have power to raise money, either directly or indirectly, by means of a rate.
1396
Cities and boroughs are not included. I move to include them.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, 1ine 19, after ("county") insert ("City") and after ("county borough") insert ("borough").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. Under Section 21 of the Local Government Act, 1894, the expression "district council" is defined to include the council of every urban district whether a borough or not, so that "borough" is included; and the expression "county district" includes every borough or urban district whether a borough or not. In the wording of the clause as it stands the only thing that is not therefore covered is the word "city," but "city" is not a term of art in drafting. A city is a borough which has superadded to it the dignity of a city under a Royal Charter, and therefore a draftsman never puts in the word "city"; it is covered. And the noble Lord will see that to make doubly secure the words "any public body who have power to raise money either directly or indirectly by means of a rate" have been inserted; they cover everything possible. Therefore the noble Lord will see that the draftsman adopted the wording in the clause, not per incuriam, but necessarily.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would point out that this applies to Scotland, and that the Act to which the noble and learned Viscount referred was a purely English Act and would not help him there. But if he thinks that the words "any public body who have power to raise money either directly or indirectly by means of a rate" would cover all the localities in Scotland, I have nothing more to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provision for Ballot.
4. A ballot for the purposes of this Act shall be taken in accordance with rules of the union to be approved for the purpose, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but the Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not approve any such rules unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right and, if reasonably possible, a fair opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This new subsection is drawn for the purpose of getting over a difficulty which has already been discussed. Rules in the case of certain societies—it does not very often occur—require formalities with which it is enormously difficult to comply. The person to be entrusted with the discretion here is the Registrar, who must be satisfied that rules for the purpose of a ballot under this Bill or rules made for other purposes of this Bill, which require approval by the Registrar, have been approved by a majority of members of a trade union, whether registered or not, voting for the purpose, or by a majority of delegates of such a trade union voting at a meeting called for the purpose. The rules are then to be taken as rules made at a meeting called for the purpose, notwithstanding that the formalities which are prescribed do not obtain. We shall have enormous difficulties unless a clause of this kind is adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("secured") insert as a new subsection:
"(2) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is satisfied, and certifies, that rules for the purpose of a ballot under this Act or rules made for other purposes of this Act which require approval by the Registrar, have been approved by a majority of members of a trade union, whether registered or not, voting for the purpose, or by a majority of delegates of such a trade union voting at a meeting called for the purpose, those rules shall have effect as rules of the union, notwithstanding that the provisions of the rules of the union as to the alteration of rules or the making of new rules have not been complied with."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very sorry to differ from the noble and learned Viscount as to an Amendment which he has himself put down, but I would ask your Lordships to consider exactly what it is that he asks as to do. He will correct me if I am wrong. A certain number of trade unions in framing their own rules, uninfluenced by Parliament, have made it a condition that a change of rules shall not take place unless a certain proportion of the members signify their desire that such a change shall be made. The rules which the Registrar will have to approve made under this Bill will become the rules of the trade union, and therefore, according to the rules of these unions, a certain proportion of unionists will be required to accept the new proposals. As the noble and learned Viscount has reminded us, this Bill was for fourteen days in Grand Com-
1398
mittee in the House of Commons, and on that Grand Committee there was a very full representation of the Labour Party. This question was never raised. It never occurred to the Labour Members that by Act of Parliament their own rules should be over-ridden; that the precautions which their own members had taken against a sudden change of rules should be upset by Act of Parliament. Nor was the point alluded to on the Report stage. It is reserved for the Government in your Lordships' House to ask us to make what I confess is a very startling change. One of your Lordships proposed that a very moderate quorum should be necessary for the adoption of the political objects dealt with in this Bill, and that was refused in arguments that I do not think convinced all your Lordships, but we felt that the matter was not of sufficient importance to make it our duty to press our particular view against the Government, and especially because we did not want to interfere in the internal economy of the trade unions. That was the point which influenced my colleagues on this Bench more than anything else. We did not want the trade unions to think that Parliament wished to interfere with their own internal concerns. But here are rules made by themselves, their own rules; and the noble and learned Viscount asks us, as it were, to upset these rules in the most arbitrary way and to say that they shall have no effect so far as the new purposes of a trade union dealt with in this Bill are concerned. I confess I have the greatest possible difficulty in believing that that can be a wise or a necessary course for your Lordships to take, and if the noble and learned Viscount presses his Amendment I must challenge the judgment of the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason why this Amendment has been moved is that on inquiry of the Registrar, and on looking at the rules, we found that under the constitution of certain of the trade unions new rules could not be made for three years. There are so many circumscriptions and difficulties put in the way that there would be a delay of that period in some cases before the new rules could be made, and as they are rules very much for the benefit of the members objecting we are anxious to get over the difficulty. The proposition in the Amendment is, I should have thought, absolutely safeguarded. There is the approval of the members and of the majority of delegates

1399
voting at a meeting, and, further, the Registrar has complete control over the whole matter. I venture to appeal to noble Lords, therefore, to let this Amendment be put in. It is proposed under the advice of the responsible advisers of the Government who have looked into this matter since it was before the House of Commons, and without this Amendment a great deal of the good hoped for from this Bill will not be done. The only practical consequence, if your Lordships do not accept the Amendment, is that the rules will not be made, and the result will be that the difficulties and friction will continue.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I need not say that none of us desire to make this Bill abortive, and if the Government will take us into their complete confidence and show us where the rules will be made abortive if we do not accept this Amendment we shall be only too delighted to consider it. But this Amendment goes far beyond the particular instances which the noble and learned Viscount gave. There may be a rule, for example, that rules of this kind cannot be carried in a trade union under, say, a two-thirds majority or something of that kind. That seems to me a very salutary and proper rule. It is not for us on this Bench to sit in judgment on the rules of the trade unions. We are quite willing to accept them as rules which the trade union officials have thought good to make, and why we should say that none of these limitations are to be effective I cannot conceive. It seems to me a most high-handed thing to do, that we should interfere in this way with the trade unions. The noble and learned Viscount says it is all safe because it is under the Registrar, but the Registrar has to approve as soon as he is satisfied that a bare majority has voted. Surely the noble and learned Viscount knows that the Registrar has no discretion. He is entirely bound. Therefore we cannot agree to the Amendment in its present form. If the noble and learned Viscount will put the real difficulties which he has in view before the House, we can consider them. He spoke of three years delay, and that is a matter that may be well worth consideration. If the noble and learned Viscount will bring up words on the next stage of the Bill which will deal with that, we will certainly consider them; but the words of this Amendment are certainly far too wide, and, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will realise that my noble and learned friend puts this forward purely as a matter of procedure and convenience. All the dark and subtle possibilities that the noble Marquess opposite seems to assume do not really exist. The noble Marquess apparently assumes that every kind of door will be open for a breach of the proper practice attaching to trade unions. His assumptions are really without foundation. It is, as my noble and learned friend said, a pure and simple matter of convenience, and on that ground it is the sort of point on which we should have naturally wished to meet noble Lords opposite but we are unable to agree to withdraw this particular Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not doubt the object of the noble and learned Viscount as explained by the noble Marquess, but, if he will pardon my saying so, he has done far more than he intended if that was his purpose. The Amendment cuts far deeper than is necessary for the fulfilment of the limited object which he has in view. I would say to the noble Marquess who leads the House that I do not think we are straining the matter at all. Let me put a hypothetical case, which really may be quite a true one. Suppose a given trade union has already deliberately inserted in its rules a provision that that union shall not take part in politics except on a vote of a two-thirds majority, there is then a provision already in the rules of the union dealing with the very objects of this Bill. This Bill says that that rule is to be swept away, and that if a majority of three in a total vote of five, in a union, it may be of ten thousand members, so decide, and the Registrar is satisfied, the rule may be ignored. I do not see what possible justification there would be for such an interference with the trade union's personal management of its own affairs. Nor do I see that any such interference is necessary for the object of clearing away very special and exceptional difficulties such as the noble and learned Viscount mentioned. I suggest that he should not press his Amendment now, but should consider the matter again in the light of our criticisms before the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mode of giving effect to exemption from contributions to political fund.
6. Effect may be given to the exemption of members to contribute to the political fund of a union either by a separate levy of contributions to that fund from the members of the union who are not exempt, or by relieving any members who are exempt from the payment of the whole or any part of any periodical contributions required from the members of the union towards the expenses of the union, and in that case the rules shall provide that the relief shall be given as far as possible to all members who are exempt on the occasion of the same periodical payment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after "exempt" ["from the members of the union who are not exempt"], to insert "and in that case the rules shall provide that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by such separate levy shall be carried to that fund." The noble Lord said: This clause provides alternative methods by which the exemption of members from a contribution to political funds may be carried into effect. It says, alternatively, either by a separate levy of contributions to the fund from members who are not exempt, or, on the other hand, "by relieving any members who are exempt from the payment of the whole or any part of any periodical contributions." It may be intended to be done under the rules, but there is no provision in the clause which guarantees the effectiveness of the protection supposed to be provided, and it seems to me that in either case something further is required. If you have a separate fund, then I think there should be the guarantee in the rules that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by the separate levy should be carried to the fund out of which these banned objects, or these objects which are objected to, may be supported. Personally I should have thought it better to say, in the first line of the clause, "Effect shall be given" either in one way or the other, but, assuming that "may" is the equivalent of "shall" when there are only two alternatives, one or other of them must be adopted. I do not press that point But it does seem to me that the least you can do for the member who objects to his money being used for the purpose is to ensure that nothing from the general trade union funds shall be put to this particular purpose except that which is specially authorised.
Amendment moved:—
Page 5, line 31, after ("exempt") insert ("and in that case the rules shall provide that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by such separate levy shall be carried to that fund").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These words seem to me to be superfluous. The words of the clause are "Effect may be given to the exemption of members to contribute to the political fund of a union either by a separate levy of contributions to that fund from the members of the union who are not exempt…." Then you cannot take their other funds and apply them to a political purpose. I do not quite appreciate the necessity for the words which the noble Lord wishes to add.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is no prohibition, so far as I can see.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You do not need it. You are constituting a separate fund in that alternative.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble and learned Viscount says, as a lawyer of his eminence, that the thing is not required, I can say no more. But what has always seemed to me to require consideration is this. A great point was made by the noble and learned Viscount in his speech on the Second Reading that trade unions had over and over again been taken by surprise, and as this is not prohibited directly in words they may claim to be taken by surprise when they find that a lawyer of the eminence of the noble and learned Viscount says that it is prohibited. Surely as this is a thing that will be read by people who are not skilled lawyers it would be better to make it absolutely distinct on the face of the Bill that they cannot do the thing which the noble and learned Viscount himself admits they ought not to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord presses the Amendment, I shall not make any further difficulty about it. I was reluctant to alter this Bill more than could be avoided, so delicate has been its construction, but if the noble Lord is uneasy I will not make any further difficulty about putting these words in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I move to insert in the clause words providing that notice in writing shall be given to each member showing separately the amount of any periodical contribution which is required from him for the expenses of the union, and the amount (if any) which is required from him for the political fund of the union. Clause 6 of this Bill provides two methods of giving effect to the exemption of members of a trade union from liability to contribute to the political funds of the union if they have given notice of their objection to doing so. This matter can be carried out in two ways. It can be carried out, either by a separate levy of contributions to the political fund from members who have not given notice of their objection and are therefore liable to contribute, or by relieving members who are exempt from contributing towards a political fund from the payment "of the whole or any part of any periodical contributions required from the members of the union towards the expenses of the union." The second method is really a deduction plan, and there is sonic doubt as to whether it would be a desirable provision to have in the Bill. Earlier in the Bill your Lordships will recollect that it is contemplated making a political fund a separate fund, and it seems as if it would be very much better to have the contributions to that political fund kept entirely separate from the contributions to the general expenses of the trade unions. Under Clause 6 it is also provided that where this second method is adopted—this deduction plan, if I may call it so—special rules are to be made. The object of my Amendment is to require those rules to provide that in such a case members are to be clearly shown how much of their contribution is required for the general purposes of the trade union and how much is going to be allocated to a particular fund. These contributions are practically always made in cash, and each member has a contribution card on which payments are marked. Where a trade union adopts political objects there would be absolutely no difficulty in having two columns marked on the card, one column setting forth the amount of the contribution required for the general purposes of the trade union, and the other column setting forth how much was required towards the political fund. I think this Amendment is a very reasonable one. It is in the interests of the members of the trade union, and I can see no objection
1404
to it. I certainly hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, after ("that") insert ("notice in writing shall be given to each member of the union showing separately the amount of any periodical contribution which is required from him for the expenses of the union and the amount (if any) which is required from him for the political fund of the union, and that").—(The Earl of Dun more.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted it would impose an obligation to give notice in writing whenever any periodical contribution was required from the members of the trade union setting out the amount required for the ordinary purposes of the union. When the Bill was introduced in the other House, a much simpler provision than this was introduced for the purpose of a circular being sent round to all members of the union acquainting them with their right to exempt themselves; but when that came to be discussed by practical people and in the Grand Committee it was found that that which seemed to us so simple to do was really a very difficult thing in practice. Members of trade unions are constantly shifting their employment; the number of members is very large, and there are numerous shiftings from place to place. Consequently to send a circular round to each one of them would be not only a very costly business but a very difficult one to undertake, and unanimously Amendments were agreed to by which the clause was put into its present form. That was the result, as I say, of the practical people striking out what was already in the Government Bill. We thought that we had done the right thing and we did our best, but we found when we came to consider it with the help of practical people that the difficulties of circularising trade union men were of a kind which only the trade union people could be alive to. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. It would lead to great difficulties and a good deal of feeling, and I do not think that any practical advantage would come from it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think your Lordships can be quite satisfied with the answer of the noble and learned Viscount, because he has not really

1405
dealt with the argument which was advanced by my noble friend. I do not pretend to know the interior working of trade unions, but my noble friend has stated, what indeed is most probably, that the demand for a contribution is made upon the most elementary form of document—namely a card, marked with the figure which the member is called upon to pay. I do not see how such a contribution can be levied except in that form. If the noble and learned Viscount will tell me in what other form a contribution can be levied except in the form of a card with a figure marked upon it, I shall be much obliged to him. Supposing that to be the case, that a card is marked with the figure for which the member is liable, why should it not be marked with two figures instead of one? That is all my noble friend asks, that it should be marked with two figures instead of one and that the two figures should distinguish between that which is wanted for the general purposes of the trade union and that which is wanted for the particular purpose of the political fund. It seems common sense, because the two contributions differ essentially. One is the general contribution which the member is compelled to pay, and the other is the political contribution which he is allowed to claim exemption from if he objects to it. Supposing he does claim exemption from it, how is he to know what money is due to the general fund and what money is clue to the political fund? If he only sees the one figure he probably will not be able, perhaps because he has not the time or probably because he has not the capacity, to distinguish between the one contribution and the other and to make the necessary division of the figure. He will not be able to say, You ask me for, whatever it is, 58.; I know I am only called upon to pay 2s. 9d., or something of that kind, and I therefore abstain from paying you the 2s. 3d. He will not be able to do that unless the figure is marked distinctly on the card—"2s. 9d. you must pay; 2s. 3d. you can claim exemption from and refuse to pay." It is the simplest thing in the world, and, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, we are all familiar with it in practice in the demand notes that are sent to us for rates. It is very common for the rates to be distinguished, not that a man may refuse to pay them but in order that he may know what he is being taxed for, I think the education rate is always distinct. I ask that that system should be
1406
applied in the most simple and elementary form in regard to these contributions, and unless the noble and learned Viscount can give us a better answer than he has done I do not see how we can avoid accepting the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have pointed out the practical difficulty, and I can assure the noble Marquess that I am not exaggerating. The Government themselves thought that the analogy of the demand note for rates applied somewhat in this case and, they proceeded, accordingly in the original draft of the Bill, but we had, as I say, for practical reasons to change it because we were satisfied that it was unworkable. I will see whether I can meet the wish of the noble Earl. The difficulty is in the sending out of these circulars. If we can make sure that notice is given in some adequate form to the satisfaction of the Registrar, that would probably meet the noble Earl's desire in this matter, and I think if the words which I am going to suggest were put in two lines lower down they may meet the case. The point of them is that they will not require this circular, which is the cause of the great difficulty. If the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his present Amendment, I will move—or I will take it from him if he moves—an Amendment in these words. The words in the clause are "and in that case the rules shall provide that the relief shall be given as far as possible to all members who are exempt on the occasion of the same periodical payment," to which I propose should be added "and for enabling members of the union to know as respects any such periodical contribution whether or not it is intended in whole or in part as a contribution towards the political fund of the union." That would leave it to the Registrar to frame the rules in such a fashion that notice should be brought to the contributor in some workable form. The difference between what I am suggesting and what the noble Earl has proposed is this. He wants a plan which I think is altogether unworkable according to practice, but what we are suggesting is that it should be left to the Registrar to frame a rule for the purpose of ensuring that the notice which the noble Earl desires is given to the contributor. I am ready to take it in that form if the noble Earl will accept it in place of his present Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We are very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for understanding our point so thoroughly, and if he would be good enough to put down his words for Report stage I would certainly advise my noble friend to do what is suggested and not press his Amendment. But I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount would explain to me, because I do not at all understand, how under Clause 6, whether amended as he suggests or not, it will exactly work. By what process other than by some posted document in the case of absent members, or by handing a circular or by a verbal request in the case of present members, will this demand be made?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Notices are given in a variety of forms to members of trade unions. They may be given at meetings or when other documents are being sent round. They are given in a variety of ways but they are brought to the knowledge of the members, and in practice no difficulty occurs.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: With your Lordships' permission I should like to make one or two observations in reply to what has been said. I withdraw my Amendment at the present moment, having been asked to do so, but I should like to reserve the right to move my Amendment again on Report if the alteration which I understand the noble and learned Viscount is going to insert in the Bill does not meet the point which I have raised. I was in favour of my Amendment naturally when I moved it, but I was still more strongly in favour of it after I had listened to the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Viscount, because it seemed to me that he objected to my Amendment on the ground that the committee, or whoever manages the affairs of the trade union, would be unable to search out and let each member of the trade union know the exact amount of his liability. It seems to me very necessary that every member of a trade union should know exactly what amount he is liable for, whether it be to the political fund or to the general fund of the trade union, and in these circumstances I reserve to myself the right of putting down my Amendment again on the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might point out that the Amendment as proposed by the noble Earl throws a somewhat heavy burden upon the trade unions, because he desires to prescribe that "notice in writing shall be given to each member of the union showing separately the amount," and so on. I think the noble Earl will agree that in the case of a great many trades oral notice could quite well be given in a great number of cases. In the case of the unions that I know most about, millers' unions, I cannot think it necessary in every case where a periodical notice is required that a separate notice in writing should be sent round to every individual member of the trade union. I am sure we would all wish to avoid any sort of implication that the authorities of the unions desire to defraud the members by allowing them to suppose that they were subscribing to the general objects of the society when they were in fact subscribing to the political purposes. I am certain that the noble Earl would not desire to make any sort of aspersion of that kind on the officials of trade unions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment down to insert, at the end of the clause, the words "and that such relief shall be proportionate to the expenditure by the union on political objects." The noble Lord said: The next Amendment, which stands in my name on the Paper, is put down to come in at the place where the noble and learned Viscount now intends to put the Amendment he has just said he will consider. I do not know whether he agrees with the object which I have in view, but if he does it would probably be better that he should endeavour to insert it in the Amendment which he is proposing on the next stage, because if I ask the House to insert this now it might be difficult for the noble Viscount to arrange to incorporate it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps it would be better to discuss this on Report. I see considerable difficulties in the Amendment as the noble Lord has worded it now, and I think it would be better to wait and see how far its purpose is superseded by what we put down.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I know the noble and learned Viscount is endeavouring to meet us, and I shall be glad to fall in with his suggestion and wait until Report. I shall therefore not move my Amendment now.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Definition of Registrar of Friendly Societies.
7. The Registrar of Friendly Societies means in relation to a registered trade union whose registered office, or an unregistered trade union whose principal office, is situated in England or Wales, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and in relation to a registered trade union whose registered office, or an unregistered trade union whose principal office, is situated in Scotland or Ireland, the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland or Ireland respectively.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to add a new subsection. This Amendment is not a hostile one in any way. It arises partly out of the provisions of the Bill as originally drawn and partly out of the changes which have taken place in the Bill since it has been before Parliament. The effect of the Bill and of the changes which have so taken place has been to put the Registrar of Friendly Societies in a very important quasi-judicial position. I do not think that can possibly be denied. In the first place, he has to decide whether a trade union—that is under the present law—is registered or not. But what is not under the present law is this. The fact of registration will become doubly important by the operation of this Bill, because it is only if a trade union is registered that it gets the privileges of having this political fund with all the conditions attached to it which are provided in the Bill. Therefore the Registrar has it in his power, exercising, of course, a judicial discretion in the matter, to admit or to refuse to a trade union these very considerable privileges.
Beyond that, when he has so admitted them there comes the question as to whether certain members should be exempt from the contribution for political purposes, and, if they are so exempt, whether they are properly treated by the majority of the trade union and the trade union officials. As your Lordships know, we have already provided in the Bill that if they are not properly treated they have an appeal to the Registrar—that is to say,
1410
if they in any way experience injury or damage in respect of the benefits of the trade union because of their action in withdrawing from the political fund, they can come to the Registrar and claim that justice shall be done. The Registrar has a perfectly wide power. He can practically give them any relief which in his opinion is equitable; and last, but not least, those great and far-reaching powers are to be exercised without any appeal whatever. Appeal is expressly barred by the provisions of the Bill. I do not complain of any of the provisions. I quite see the force of the argument which has been addressed to both Houses of Parliament that these matters as they concern people who are not very well off ought to be withdrawn from the ordinary Courts of Justice, which are very expensive, and that a summary and inexpensive method should be provided, and that method is provided under the Bill.
But although I agree with all that, I cannot help arriving at the conclusion that the Registrar has become a very important quasi-judicial person under the Bill, and therefore one begins to ask what is the position of the Registrar, what is his tenure, and what is his status. It is that of an ordinary Civil Servant under the present Bill, unless some Amendment is introduced. He will hold his tenure under the discretion of the Government Department under which he happens to be. The decisions he comes to may be the subject of the greatest criticism on the part of the public; they deal with delicate matters which excite in the highest degree the interest of both employers and employed in these great industrial struggles to which reference has already been made in the course of these debates; therefore, one cannot help saying that it is very important that he should not be exposed to public pressure. He owes obedience to a Minister, and a Minister, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, is the creature of a majority for the time being—it may be a Radical or a Unionist majority—but at any rate the Minister is there at the pleasure of a majority, and he is the target of every conceivable kind of political pressure. That is what he is there for, and that is what he is paid for—to be pressed by his political opponents and to do his best for the government of the country notwithstanding that pressure. That is the essence of his being. He holds in the

1411
hollow of his hand the Registrar, and we want not merely to save the Registrar from the results of that dependent position but we want to save him from even a suspicion that his decisions are influenced by the fact that he knows he is a dependent. We want to put him in such a position that no one can throw a stone at him and say, "He has given such and such a decision because he is afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might dismiss him, or because he is afraid of the Liberal majority in the House of Commons." The same would apply in the case of a Unionist majority.
We want to put the Registrar in a better position than that of a mere Civil Servant. Of course, we do not want to put him in the position of a High Court Judge; that would be an exaggeration. But many officials in this country hold office during good behaviour—that is to say, they cannot be dismissed except on cause shown, either that they are incompetent or that they have misbehaved themselves in some way. On those grounds and on those grounds alone may they be dismissed. Such is the tenure of a County Court Judge, for example, or the tenure of members of the Scottish Land Court which was recently established. I do not think that applies to the President of the Land Court, but it does to its ordinary members. Such is the tenure of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, whose position is very analogous in many respects to the position which the Registrar will hold under this Bill. They all hold, not at pleasure, but by good behaviour; and I suggest to the Government that they ought to extend that status to the Registrar. If they do so they will not only give security to him, but also exhalt his office and give people confidence in his decision, which is so important. I do not move this Amendment, as I have said, in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, but in order to carry out the provisions of the Bill to their logical conclusions.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("respectively") insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) of section one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland, and the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Ireland shall not be dismissed from their respective offices except for incapacity or misbehaviour: but nothing in this
1412
provision shall effect the application to any of the officers aforesaid to whom the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, apply of the ordinary rules applicable to officers in the Civil Service of the Crown of retirement on the attainment of the age of sixty-five years or such other age as may be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council for the retirement of officers in the Civil Service of the Crown."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty about this is not one of substance but of administration or rather constitutional principle. I know of no case of a Civil Service official who has been given the tenure of a Judge unless he has been a Judge. The Railway Commissioners are a case in point. Virtually they hold judicial office. But there are a number of people holding office analogous to that of the Registrar who would come under the same category. For instance, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies has many functions which are semi-judicial, such as these. The officials of the Board of Trade in connection with Bankruptcy administration have questions to decide judicially, and yet it has never been the practice to put them on any different tenure from any other Civil Servant. I do not think any one has ever heard of a Civil Servant being dismissed except for incapacity or misbehaviour, and I do not recollect any one being dismissed at all recently. They hold their tenure fairly firm. If the permanent head of a Department agrees with his chief it is not from fear of dismissal, because he knows that he practically cannot be dismissed; it is in the course of the general harmony that comes from constantly working together from day to day and a desire to help the Minister with whom he is in contact.
It is not the evil which the noble Marquess has been discussing which is the real evil you want to avoid. It is this. Whereas a Judge has nobody to look to—he has no superior; he is not an official in the ordinary sense at all; he is under no Minister—the Registrar and everybody in the Registrar's position must be under some Minister. Consequently there is always that possibility of pressure to which the noble Marquess alluded. I believe that pressure to count for much less than the public think. If you put in this Amendment you will have just the same position as you had before; and then this difficulty may arise, that other people
may claim it and say, "We, too, have

1413
important judicial functions." The Board of Trade particularly would have a case for that, and I think it would introduce considerable difficulties into the whole of the Civil Service if your Lordships were to discriminate in the way suggested. Either all the important people would ask for this new tenure, or they would say "None of us ought to have it." As I have said, nobody is ever dismissed from the Civil Service as a matter of practice except for something widely different from the danger that is apprehended hero, and I suggest to the noble Marquess that the Amendment is not necessary and that if it were carried it would introduce difficulties into the administration of the Civil Service which he would not wish to contemplate.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am not surprised that my noble friend has called attention to this matter, because not only by this Bill but in other legislation in recent years the duties and powers of the Registrar have been very largely augmented, and his position is very different now from what it was twenty or thirty years ago. At the same time I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment, because I think there is great force in what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, that there are a good many other appointments in the Civil Service for which the same kind of plea might be made and possibly to the same extent; and even if the Registrar were placed in the position contemplated, I do not think that the Assistant Registrars should be put in the same position. The whole question would want consideration, not only with regard to this appointment, but with regard to other appointments in the Civil Service. I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said as to the relations between the permanent heads of Departments and Ministers. So far as I know there has been no instance of a case where any such protection as the noble Marquess suggests has been found necessary in the case of a Civil Servant. They do their duty fearlessly, and with the perfect certainty that so long as they do their duty they will not be interfered with by their political superiors. I have had occasion to consider whether a Civil Servant should be retained in office, but I have always bad the greatest difficulty in finding sufficient cause for removing him. Unless there is some real cause that could be properly defended in Parliament there is no fear
1414
of dismissal. I do not think, therefore, that there is any real necessity for this proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have already told your Lordships that I did not move this Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, and that I did not propose to press it if the Government could not accept it. After what has fallen from my noble friend the responsibility must rest on the Government—and perhaps a little on my noble friend, too—for the decision that they will not put this official in a different position. We shall watch with great interest the working of this Bill, and as it may very likely happen that the decisions of the Registrar will be exposed to the severe criticism of public opinion, the Government may live to be a little sorry that they did not exalt the position of the Registrar when they had an opportunity.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is impossible for my noble friend to press his Amendment after what has taken place, but I was much struck by what the noble and learned Viscount said in objecting to it. He said it was very difficult to define a tenure which would be suitable to this particular office without going too far. The difficulty has largely been increased, if I may venture to say so, by the action of the present Government, because they are perpetually increasing this class of office, which if not judicial is semi-judicial, and they are superseding the ordinary action of the Law Courts by appointing Departmental officers with semi-judicial functions. This may not be a proper occasion for making a protest, but I believe there is a very strongly growing feeling that this practice of putting Civil Servants and those who are more or less under the power of the Executive Government into these quasi-judicial positions has gone about as far as is judicious.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 223.)

PILOTAGE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which I venture to present to your Lordships to-day has for its object the consolidation of the law relating to pilotage generally and the rendering of local legislation dealing with this subject more accessible and uniform. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill is founded mainly on the Report of a Parliamentary Committee which was called together some time ago in view of the very unsatisfactory and chaotic state of the law dealing with pilotage in this country. As I say, this Bill is founded mainly on the recommendation of that Committee, and is, I venture to think, acceptable to all parties. Your Lordships have only to read the concluding paragraph of the Committee's Report to see how necessary some legislation was in regard to this matter.
I shall only say a few words as regards the machinery and other parts of the Bill. In dealing with the machinery, your Lordships have to remember that all Orders made under Part I of the Bill must come up to Parliament for sanction. We propose under the Bill to appoint Commissioners for a period of five years or more, but I should like to explain that at the end of that period the same Commissioners will not necessarily be re-appointed. We propose to have a panel, and the Board of Trade will be able to select Commissioners from the panel as necessary. Their duties will be to inquire into the conditions at each port and to select pilots for every port except ports where schemes have been forwarded to the Board of Trade of which the Board of Trade approve; but whether the Board of Trade approve of the scheme or not, or whether an inquiry has been held, a Pilotage Order must be made in each case which must come to Parliament for revision. After the Pilotage Order has been approved the local pilotage authority will be empowered to make by-laws" which must be approved by the Board of Trade; and in the event of any opposition to these by-laws the question will be submitted to Parliament. We also propose under the Bill to set up an Advisory Committee consisting of shipowners, pilots, and all persons interested in this particular department.
1416
I now come to the point dealing with compulsory and non-compulsory pilotage. A certain proportion of the Committee were in favour of compulsory pilotage being extended to every port in this kingdom, but after very careful inquiry the Board of Trade were not able to assent to this. They said, I think very naturally, Why upset the existing state of things which is working satisfactorily unless you can show some good cause for such action? and before any change could have been made it would have had to be proved that in non-compulsory ports pilots are less efficient, that the supply of pilots could not be maintained, that the earnings were not adequate, and that more casualties took place in those ports. None of these things were able to be proved, and so we thought the best solution of the question was to leave all compulsory ports as existing now compulsory, and all non-compulsory ports non-compulsory. While by this Bill a compulsory port cannot be changed into a non-compulsory port, a non-compulsory port can be changed into a compulsory port by application to Parliament. There are certain exemptions set forth in the Bill from compulsory pilotage—except, of course in the case of passenger vessels—with which I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships.
Now I come to one of the most important provisions in this Bill—what is known as the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage. As this is a rather more important question I will deal somewhat more fully with it. As the House is aware, the Pilotage Bill of 1911 contained a clause abolishing the defence of compulsory pilotage. This clause was founded on the strong and unanimous recommendation of a Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Kenelm Digby. The Bill was reintroduced this session without the clause. The reason for its omission was not that the Government were in any way opposed to the abolition of the defence. Their view is that the question is one which ought to be settled at an early date, and should not be postponed indefinitely. The reason for not dealing with it in this Bill is an international one. A Convention signed at Brussels in 1910 contained an Article abolishing the defence, but it was expressly provided that effect need not be given to the Article until an International Agreement had been arrived at for the purpose of securing uniformity in the law as to the limitation of

1417
shipowners' liability, which in this country is dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage and the uniformity of the law as regards limitation of liability were in fact regarded as complementary parts of an international arrangement.
When, however, the Bill came before a Committee of the House of Commons there was a general desire to guard against the possibility of an indefinite postponement of the abolition of the defence, and the Government accordingly agreed to the insertion of the suspensory clause. If an agreement as regards limitation of shipowners' liability is practicable, ample time is given for its conclusion before the clause comes into operation five years hence, and the Government will certainly do their best to secure a satisfactory settlement of the question at the next International Conference, which is expected to meet in the autumn. The first part of the arrangement, to which the suspensory clause gives effect, represents a substantial prospective benefit to traders and dockowners, and, if the next Conference has a successful issue, it seems only right that this fact should be borne in mind by them and also by Parliament if and when the time comes to consider a Bill dealing with the limitation of shipowners' liability. That Bill ought therefore to receive sympathetic consideration. I hope that the House, looking at the matter all round, will allow this clause to remain in the Bill. I do not think it will prejudice the international negotiations, which I hope may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion within a short time.
I touch now on the point as regards alien pilots. In the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 your Lordships will remember a clause was put in which limited the granting of pilots' certificates to inhabitants of this country; all foreigners were excluded. After that Bill became an Act several foreign countries stated that this was a violation of existing Treaty rights. Your Lordships can readily imagine that the Government could not accept that view, because in matters of public safety no Treaty obligation could be allowed to operate. However, a small Committee was called together by the French and British Governments. They went into this question very carefully, and I am glad to say have come to an amicable arrangement which, as your Lordships will see, is embodied in the Bill.
1418
This clause allows the issue of certificates to foreign masters and mates at ports where such certificates existed prior to the passing of the Act of 1906; but we have put in the Bill an Admiralty veto so that at any port where the Admiralty think it inadvisable to allow the grant of certificates to foreign masters and mates they can at any moment veto the granting of them. The Admiralty are perfectly satisfied with this arrangement, and I feel sure your Lordships will also assent to it. I think I have dealt with the main provisions of this Bill. I trust that your Lordships will allow it to pass with as few amendments as possible, for it represents agreements arrived at between all parties, and it is therefore with every confidence that I submit it to your Lordships consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships by going into the various points to which the noble Earl who has just sat down has referred, but there is one point in this Bill to which I am anxious to call his attention. I refer to paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Clause 7. Clause 7 provides that the Board of Trade may by a Pilotage Order make all kinds of re-arrangements in pilotage districts, and in doing so it may "provide that any Act (other than this Act), order, charter, custom, by-law, regulation, or provision shall, so far as it relates to pilotage, cease to have effect within any pilotage district or as respects any pilotage authority"—in fact, it gives the Board of Trade very wide powers to make changes in the present system by Provisional Order. I do not at all object to those powers. I think they are necessary in order to endeavour to bring the pilotage system in this country into proper relations with the particula districts which are affected.
But I must express my regret that in the paragraph to which I have referred His Majesty's Government have thought fit to leave out some words which were in the Bill when it was introduced. Paragraph (h) as it stands provides that the Board of Trade may by order "provide that pilotage shall be compulsory in any area where it has previously not been compulsory." As the Bill was originally introduced it went on to say "or provide

1419
that pilotage shall be non-compulsory in any area where it has previously been compulsory." I quite understand the influences which have been a work in order to induce the Government to leave out those latter words. I believe they were left out in the Standing Committee, but I have had a very strong representation from an important city that I used to represent in the House of Commons to the effect that this would be grossly unfair to the City of Bristol. There is a certain limited pilotage area within that channel, and ships going to the Port of Bristol are compelled to take a pilot, but ships passing through the same area, on their way to ports in Gloucester and Monmouth are not compelled to take a pilot. I am not at all sure that the wide provision which I have read enabling the Board of Trade to vary Acts, orders, charters, customs by-laws and the rest of it would enable them to make the regulations of that particular district apply in at all a fair way to the City of Bristol. I believe the same case arises in regard to Liverpool. An Amendment was moved in another place with the idea of restoring the words which originally were in the Bill, but it was defeated by the opposition of His Majesty's Government. I will place some words on the Paper for Committee which I hope your Lordships and the Government will be able to consider more favourably in this House than they were considered in another place, because I think that nothing can be less defensible than the way in which this would operate in the particular area to which I have alluded.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware the object of this Bill is to carry out an undertaking which was given to the railway companies after the strike of 1911. The Government, in order to put an end to a very critical state of affairs, appointed a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir David Harrel. As your Lordships are
1420
aware, the actual pledge given by the Government was this—
"The Government will propose to Parliament next session legislation providing that an increase in the cost of labour due to the improvement of conditions for the stall would be a valid justification for a reasonable general increase of charge within the legal maxima if challenged under the Act of 1894."
Under this Act, if a company increases any rate or charge, a trader may complain to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the company have then to prove that the increase is reasonable. The Commission in several cases have held that increased cost of labour justified an increase of rate; but the companies have always shown—and it appears that the Commission would require them to show—that the cost of carrying the particular traffic on which the increased rate is charged has risen.
What the companies foresaw was that they would probably be compelled to increase wages and lower hours wholesale, and they therefore asked, not unreasonably, that they should be allowed to meet this general rise of cost by a general increase of rates, without being required to prove in any particular case that the cost of carrying the traffic had risen by an amount justifying that particular increase. The undertaking quoted was accordingly given to them; they agreed to accept the findings of the Royal Commission; and the revised conciliation scheme recommended by the Commission, with some alterations settled between the parties, came into force. Under the new scheme considerable advances in wages and reductions of hours have already been agreed or awarded. The Bill provides that the Railway and Canal Commission shall, on complaint, treat as justified an increase of rate which the railway companies prove to be a not unreasonable proportion of an increase reasonably required to meet a rise in the cost of labour employed on other than passenger traffic.
Two alterations made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons deserve to be mentioned. A proviso was inserted with the object of making it clear that, in considering whether the total increase is reasonably required to meet the rise in cost, the Commission may take any relevant circumstances into account—that is, they are not bound to consider merely the rise in labour cost, but may,

1421
if they think fit, have regard to other items of cost Or profit. As your Lordships are also aware, another clause was introduced limiting the operation of the Bill to five years, and an undertaking has been given by us that we shall continue this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act every year so long as Parliament desires it. There is another small Amendment which I shall move, with which I will deal to-morrow. I do not think there is anything more I need say except ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not think I can find much fault with the summary of events which the noble Earl has given in introducing the Bill. He specially referred to the circumstances of the year 1911 and to the critical state of affairs which was then occurring. There was a serious strike existing and, an even more serious development threatening, and it was bringing practically the whole traffic, including the food supplies of large towns, to a dangerous position of stoppage. The noble Earl told us that a Commission had been appointed, and, as your Lordships will recollect, it made a Report. After that Report there were a series of conferences, under the auspices of the Board of Trade, between those who represented the railway servants and those who represented the directors and shareholders of the railway companies. I do not know that so far as that goes I have much to comment upon. The noble Earl read the undertaking which was given in perfectly fair terms.
But what I want to emphasise is this, that I think the delay which has occurred has caused a certain amount of prejudice to the railway companies. I am not finding fault with His Majesty's Government on that point. They were, to some extent at any rate, the victims of circumstances, and I want to be quite fair to them. They endeavoured to include in the Bill, which they had promised to introduce in the interests of railway companies, a number of other clauses dealing with general railway policy, and I have no doubt that if events had made it possible, they would have carried out their intention of sub-
1422
mitting that Bill for discussion in another place. But circumstances were too strong for them, and that Bill had to be withdrawn and this Bill substituted for it. What I want to point out, and I want to emphasise this because it may be of importance when we come to a subsequent stage, is that all along, all through the course of procedure in regard to this particular Bill, there never was, until the last few days, any suggestion of a time limit of any sort or kind. The original undertaking of the Government was read by the noble Earl, and on November 7, when the Prime Minister withdrew the former Bill and announced in another place in reply to a question what the policy of the Government would be, he said, what we all know to be the fact, that in view of the pressure of time upon Parliament it was not possible to proceed with the whole policy; but, he said, "We hope to introduce and pass in this session a one clause Bill." That makes it perfectly clear that at that time at any rate there was no intention of a time limit, because that would have had to be in a separate clause.
The necessity for the Bill arises in this way. It recalls to my mind circumstances which are perhaps fresher in my memory than that of noble Lords, because throughout the year 1889 when I was serving in the Board of Trade I was charged, along with the late Sir Courtney Boyle, with looking into the question of railway rates and charges, and after about fifteen months' work we succeeded in codifying some eight hundred Acts of Parliament. The Act of 1894 contained a provision which prevented a railway company from raising a rate, if the rate was objected to, without the consent of the Railway Commission, even if those rates were within the maximum which five years before had been agreed to; and the effect of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in 1911 was to make sure that owing to the changed circumstances and the increased cost of fuel and of wages, and so on, to which the railway companies were being put, they should not be prejudiced in that particular matter, and that if they proved to the Railway Commission that the increased cost made it necessary for them to increase their charges that was to be given effect to. I can truly say that from August, 1911—that is, eighteen months ago—down to February 12 of this year there never was,

1423
so far as we know, a single suggestion for a time limit in regard to this Bill. It has come upon us with absolute' surprise, and it has never, unlike some of the other Amendments which have been put into other parts of this Bill, been the subject of negotiation, or at any rate in any way of consent by the railway companies; and it does seem to me rather hard that this should be imposed upon us.
I think it reasonable, therefore, to say that I shall move to omit that particular clause, and then if necessary I shall take an opportunity of arguing the matter at greater length. But I thought it respectful to noble Lords opposite to say that this change of policy had caused a great deal of astonishment amongst those to whose prejudice it certainly would enure if the Bill was passed in its present form, and that we shall take an opportunity of raising the question when we come to the subsequent stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is right to add that we saw with the greatest surprise the course of proceedings in the House of Commons on the last stage of this Bill. I hesitate, especially at this late hour, to go into the circumstances which led up to the sudden change of front on the part of His Majesty's Government and to their insertion in the Bill of this very important Amendment which, upon the face of it, appears to be directly in conflict with the pledges which they made in the course of the negotiations. I do not want to put it higher than that. I think it is possible that the noble Earl opposite and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House may be able to say something by way of explanation, but if that is not the case I would earnestly urge upon them to consider between this and the Committee stage whether they cannot accept an Amendment such as my noble friend has foreshadowed in order to put the Bill back into the position in which it was before this Amendment was inserted on Report stage in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess must be, if I may venture to say so, to the last degree punctilious in accepting responsibility for the pledges which His Majesty's Government gave to the railway companies in this particular matter. The railway companies were engaged in a great controversy at the time. I hold no brief for them,
1424
and I have no desire whatever to say that they were right and that the railway servants were wrong. In some respects I hold the other view. I think that the railway servants were underpaid in many cases. But the railway companies were engaged in a controversy at the time, and in order to bring about peace the Government persuaded them, under certain conditions, to accept an arrangement, and it seems to me that the Government are bound to carry out those conditions and adhere to them; and unless they can show that they are in spirit bound to pass the Bill with this time limit, I would earnestly appeal to them before it passes out of your Lordships' House to set right this which may be counted as a breach of faith. I hope the noble Marquess will accept my remarks as being made, not in an aggressive spirit, but in order that the public faith of the Government, if it be so, should be maintained.
LORD FABER: My Lords, this seems on the face of it a simple little Bill, but it takes a certain amount of understanding. The arguments advanced by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and by the noble Marquess who has just sat down are good arguments, and I could only repeat them almost in the same form. But perhaps I might add this. I should like noble Lords first of all to bear in mind that the Railway Act of 1894 fixed certain maximum rates for railways; and there was this peculiarity about that Act, that if a railway company lowered the rates and then wanted to raise them again, although they were only going to raise them to the maximum, they could not do so without going to the Railway Commissioners, who were to say whether the proposed increase was reasonable or not. Competition came on after 1894 between the railways, and naturally enough the rates got down below the maximum. In 1911 certain serious railway troubles developed. The railwaymen asked for a great increase in wages, and the railway directors, hearing in mind that after all they represented shareholders, said that they could not make those tremendous grants to their workmen. On the other hand, the Government were very anxious, and I do not wonder at it, that the railways should continue working, and that therefore the men should receive these extra wages. Upon that the Government and the railway directors came together, and it was decided that, if the wages were

1425
increased, that in itself was to be a sufficient justification hereafter before the Railway Commissioners for raising rates. That was a hard and fast bargain.
Now we are faced to-night, after the directors had thought that the whole matter was settled once and for all, with a time limit. A time limit is the very thing that railway companies do not want, and this will accentuate matters in the future. After five years this thing will be brought up again, and the railway companies will not know where they are. They will not know what their position with their workmen is, and, further than that, it will distract their attention from economies that they have been desirous for long to carry out. There seems to be something in human nature which apparently renders it permissible—nay, I will say praiseworthy—for anybody to try to get the better of a railway company, and, I might add, of a Government. That is thought praiseworthy by men who in ordinary life would not do anything in the least approaching to the dishonourable, but they take a different view when attacking a Government or a railway company; and here, when it is a fight between the Government and a railway company, it seems to me to be a case of dog eating dog. I venture to say it would be greatly for the benefit of the public and of the railway companies of this country that they should be strong and unharassed, so that they can have time to devote to their business. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who spoke just now that we ought not for one moment to listen to Clause 3 of this Bill, which says that this matter shall come up for consideration at the end of five years, and thereafter every year.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I can explain the purpose of this Bill very briefly. It is a Bill to amend the Act of 1911 with a similar title. That Act was passed largely in order to give Governors of Protectorates pension rights. The minimum period for pension as a Governor was fixed by that Act at ten years; but in subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act there is a provision that if a Governor serves as Governor for less than ten years he may reckon his years of service as Governor towards his pension, and the rate of that pension has to be fixed for those years at the rate of his last post in the Service. The actual words used to secure this continuity are "service in the permanent Civil Service of the State," and those words are defined in the definition section as meaning service in respect of which a pension may be granted under the Superannuation Acts of 1884 to 1889. One has to turn back to the Act of 1887 to find what those words mean, and turning back to that; Act it is found that service in a Colony qualifies for this purpose, but not service in a Protectorate. It is to amend that entirely unexpected interpretation of the Act of 1911 that this Bill is introduced. There are one or two ex-Governors who are suffering already in regard to the matter, and that is why it is made retrospective. I have great confidence in recommending the Bill to the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CLERKS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order. No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT (1912) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.