PAYMENT OF LABOUR M.P'S

Otago Witness, Issue 2924, 30 March 1910, Page 40

PAYMENT OF LABOUR M.P'S

ITRADE union levies illegal. (Fbom Our Own Coebesponden^O LONDON, December 24. 'Judgment was delivered on Tuesday ; n the House of * Lords in the case of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants .versus Osborne, which raised the question of the legality of levies on trade-union members for the payment of parliamentary [representatives. The final decision is thus given after the matter has been before' the courts for 18 months. In July, 1908, 'Mr. Justice Neville decided that it was im(possible to hold , thaf trade unions were mot at liberty- to affiliate themselves to iwhatever political. party they-pleased. On 'November 28; 1908, the Court. ; 6f "Appeal. .Unanimously reversed the decision. Lord. Halsbury now stated that it might B>e difficult to express in sufficiently definite language-how far individual freedom of could: be preserved consistently acceptance of pecuniary support. He bould foresee questions of this sort, but ihe did riot desire to be called upon to decide them.' until they did arise, and he therefore contented himself by saying that this levy was, to his mind, manifestly beyond the powers at present possessed Jpy a trade union*. Lord Macnaghten said the question was tti great importanoe and general interest, ibufc he could riot- think that there was any difficulty about, it. It seemed to him that ipo conclusion was possible but that which commended itself to the Court of Appeal. 'lt could hardly be contended that a political organisation was not a thing very different from a combination for trade .purposes. He did not think it was necessary a.nd he doubted whether it was expedient or possible, to discuss the .so-called constitutional question which was introduced, rather unfortunately he thought, into the case in the Court of Appeal, tie

thought the decision of the Court of Appeal must be maintained. In the absence of Lord James, of Hereford, hie written opinion was read by Lord Macnaghten ■ Lord James said his contusion was that judgment should be given in favour of, the respondent, but he desired to explain that this opinion was founded upon one particular fact existing in the case. He thought it might well be in the interests of trade unionism and Labour that the funds of- the trade union should be devoted to the payment of the expenses of a member of Parliament, who should represent s-uoh interest. His difficulty arose in consequence of the terms of Rule 13, as amended in October, 1905: " All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions of the Labour party, and be subject to their whip." He construed this condition as meaning that the member undertook to forego his own judgment and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of some person or persons actifig on behalf of the- Labour parties. Therefore he was of opinion that the application of money to the maintenance of a member whose action was so regarded was not within the powers of a trade union.

Lord Atkinson read a judgment agreeing that "The appeal must be dismissed. Lord Shaw read a very long .judgment. On the first question raised by the appeal he said he stood alone, for he neither assented to the view expressed by the Court of Appeal nor dissented from it. But, on the whob case, lie Self himself bound to agree with the decision of this House already expressed, that the appeal should be dismissed On the motion of Lord Halsbury the appeal was dismissed, with costs. It is understood that the Executive of the Labour party,'will meet to consider the position. As Mr Koir Hardie stated at Glasgow, the party has ample funds in hand or in sight for the payment of election expenses and salaries for some years to come. The decision affects 33 present Labour M.P.'s and 16 miners' representatives; altogefhtr between 60 and 70 candidates at the coming election are concerned.