ENGLISH TRADES UNIONS

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11877, 26 April 1904, Page 8

ENGLISH TRADES UNIONS

DEBATE IN PARLL\MENT. | A BILL SHELVED. ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received April 25th, 10.31 p.m.) LONDON, April 25. In the House of Commons a Bill was introduced by Mr J. M. Paulton, M.P. (L.) for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham, legalising peaceful picketing--, aud restoring the Trades Unions to their legal position, as they were understood to exist prior to the Taff Vale decisions. Tlie Bill was read a second time by 238 votes ito 199 votes. .Tlie Bill will not be proceeded with this session The measure is not opposed by the Government, though Mr Balfour and Sir R. B. Finlay, K.C., Attorney-General, spoke against it. Mr Balfour urged the House to await the Royal Commission's report. Personally he agreed that the House ought to relieve benefit funds from any charge if members of a Union went beyond the law. Nobody could desire that trade societies, apart from their position as benefit societies, should be given exceptional immunity from liability. Individual and peaceful persuasion might amount to terrorism if practised by a number of men. While admitting that the general effect of Trades Unions was beneficial, he said that if their powers of organisation were greatly enlarged, it would seriously endanger personal and individual liberty. Sir R. B. Finlay declared that it was perfectly feasible for Trades Unions to put their benefit funds under a district trust, ' and so safeguarding them if any alteration were made in tlie law of conspiracy. Parliament ought first to turn its attention to the gigantic trusts. The Opposition greeted the division with prolonged cheers. The majority included sixty Nationalists and a number of Unionists. "The Times" blames Mr Balfour for his attitude on the BHI, which, it declares, is a hasty and ill-considered attempt at legislation. The important principle established by the Tuff Vale decision of 1902 was that a Trade Union, although not a corporate body, can be sued as a legal entity, and that its property therefore is liable for the illegal acts of its agents and officers acting under its authority, or on its behalf. The decision was given in the House of Lords and completely reversed the previous common legal conception of a Trade Union as a body that had no liabilities, but only privileges. At the Trades Unions' Congress of 1902 the legal position of Trades Unions as affected by this decision was discussed. A proposal to establish subordinate companies for the protection of benefit funds, as suggested by the legal advisers, was rejected, and a resolution was passed calling for the restoration of the old interpretation of the law, the legalisation of peaceful picketing, the limitation of the Conspiracy Act, and the codification of Trade Union law. To achieve this object the Labour Representation Committee was asked to call a committee of all bona fide labour organisations, in order to further the election of Labour members of Parliament, and devise a common course of action. At last year's Congress the resolution in favour of an amendment of the law was again passed.