THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 The Social Problems Series 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 OLIPHANT SMEATON, M.A., F.S.A. 
 
 TRADE UNIONISM
 
 The Social Proble7ns Se?'ies 
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 
 RICHARD BELL, M.P. 
 
 SECRETARY AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF RAILWAV SERVANTS 
 
 LONDON: T. C. & E. C. JACK 
 
 1 6 HENRIETTA STREET, W.C. 
 
 AND EDINBURGH 
 
 1907
 
 
 TRADE UNIOxNISM 
 
 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INAUGURATION, 
 
 PROGRESS, AND DEVELOPMENT 
 
 OF TRADE UNIONS 
 
 Trade Unions have been heard of more durino- tlie 
 last six years, and particularly the year just closed 
 (1906), than perhaps ever before. The growth of 
 population and industries has given wider fields 
 for the propagation of Trade Unionism, greater 
 necessity for its existence, and, naturally, created 
 greater interest for and against it. Tlie House of 
 Lords' decision in the Taff Vale case in 1901, there- 
 fore, created quite a sensation in the camps of both 
 employers and workmen. Last year, when the 
 Government undertook the responsibility of enacting 
 that Trade Unions should l)e replaced in the position 
 in which they were understood to be prior to 
 that decision, those who were and are opposed to 
 Trade Unions brought all sorts of pressure to bear 
 upon the Government and the House of Lords to 
 I
 
 2 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 prevent such a charter being granted to the Trade 
 Unionists, many prophesying all sorts of wicked 
 and tortious acts being committed if such were to 
 be done. Such alarming pictures of cruelty and 
 injustice were drawn as if Trade Unionism was a 
 new thing and never existed previously. 
 
 It must be excusable, therefore, to those who 
 conclude that the people so much alarmed, and 
 who contemplate such mischievous work on the 
 part of Trade Unions in the future, have never 
 acquainted themselves thoroughly with the history 
 of Trade Unionism, and, certainly, never read Mr. 
 Sydney Webb's History of Trade Unions. 
 
 No person has rendered a greater or more use- 
 ful service to the Trade Union Movement than 
 Mr. and Mrs. Webb by the publication of that 
 book, which is regarded as a fountain of information, 
 going back many centuries. It is a pity the price 
 prohibits it being in the hands of every working 
 man, or Trade Unions in this country would be in 
 a far stronger position than they are even now. 
 
 The principles of Trade Unionism, though not 
 called by that name, can be traced back to B.C. 1490, 
 when the Hebrew brickmakers in Egypt revolted 
 against being required to make bricks without 
 straw. From that time forward, no doubt, if 
 records were made and could be found, we should
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 3 
 
 find that men did form combinations for the pro- 
 tection of their own trade or interests. 
 
 In the Middle Ages we find there existed many 
 combinations under the title of " Gilds," ostensibly 
 for the same purposes as present - day Trade 
 Unionism, the difference between the two periods 
 in conditions and methods of employment necessi- 
 tating the same changes in the conditions and 
 methods of Trade Unions. 
 
 In 1417 we find the tailors in London were 
 forbidden to dwell apart from their masters because 
 they held assemblies and formed a kind of association. 
 In 1538 it is reported that the Bishop of Ely 
 reported to Cromwell that twenty-one journeymen 
 shoemakers of Wisbech had assembled on a hill 
 without the town, and sent three of their number 
 to summon all tlie master shoemakers to meet 
 them, in order to insist upon an advance in their 
 waoes, threatenino- that "there shall none come 
 into the town to serve for that wages within a 
 twelvemonth and a day, but we woll have an 
 harme or a legge of hym, except they woll take an 
 oath as we have doon." 
 
 A pamphlet of 1669 contains what appears to be 
 a complaint against these combinations, the reading 
 of which sounds very much like some articles 
 which appeared in the Times in 1903 against the 
 present-day Trade Unions. A portion of it read :
 
 4 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 "The general conspiracy amongst artificers and 
 laborers is so apparent that within these twenty-five 
 years the wages of joiners, bricklayers, carpenters, 
 etc., are increased, I mean within 40 miles of 
 London (against all reason and good government), 
 from eighteen and twenty pence a day, to 2s. 6d. 
 and 3s., and mere labourers from 10 and 12 pence a 
 day, to 16 and 20 pence, and this not since the dread- 
 ful fire of London only, but some time before. A 
 journeyman shoemaker has now in London (and pro- 
 portionately in the country) 1 4 pence for making that 
 pair of shoes which within these 12 years he made 
 for 10 pence. . . . Nor has the increase of wages 
 amongst us been occasioned by quickness of trade 
 and want of hands (as some do suppose), which are 
 indeed justifiable reasons, but through an exacting 
 humour and evil disposition in our people that they 
 may live the better above their station, and work 
 so much the fewer days by how much the more 
 they exact in their wages." 
 
 Each act of combination amongst the workpeople 
 as they were found out by the employers, companies, 
 or corporations, was brought before the notice of 
 Parliament in some form or other, but generally by 
 petitions, and almost in every case an Act was passed 
 prohibiting that particular form of combination. 
 In 1720 the master tailors complained to Parliament 
 that *' the Journeymen Taylors in and about the
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 5 
 
 Cities of London and Westminster, to the number 
 of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered 
 into a combination to raise their wages and leave 
 off an hour sooner than they used to do ; and for the 
 better carrying on of their design have subscribed their 
 respective names in books prepared for that purpose, 
 at the several houses of call or resort (being publick- 
 houses in and about London and Westminster) 
 where they use ; and collect several considerable 
 sums of money to defend any prosecutions against 
 them." Parliament listened to this complaint, and 
 passed Act 7 Geo. i, restraining both the giving 
 and the takino- of wasfes in excess of a stated 
 maximum, and all combinations being prohibited. 
 
 In 1741 a short essay upon Trade in General 
 was written by " A Lover of his Country," in which 
 it was remarked that the woolcombers had " for a 
 number of years past erected themselves into a sort 
 of a corporation (though without a charter) ; their 
 first pretence was to take care of their poor brethren 
 that should fall sick or be out of work ; and this 
 was done by meeting once or twice a week, and 
 each of them contributing twopence or threepence 
 towards the box to make a l)ank, and when they 
 became a little formidable they gave laws to their 
 masters, and also to themselves — viz., That no man 
 should comb wool under two shillings per dozen ; 
 that no master should employ any comber that was
 
 6 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 not of their club ; if he did, they agreed one and all 
 not to work for him ; and if he employed twenty, 
 they all of them turned out, and oftentimes were not 
 satisfied with that, but would abuse the honest man 
 that would labour, and in a riotous manner beat him, 
 break his comb-pots, and destroy his working tools. 
 They further support one another, in so much that 
 they are become one Society throughout the king- 
 dom. And that they may keep up their price to 
 encourage idleness rather than labour, if any one of 
 their club is out of work, they give him a ticket and 
 money to seek for work at the next town where a 
 box club is, where he is also subsisted, suffered to 
 live a certain time with them, and then used as 
 before, by which means he can travel the kingdom 
 round, be caressed at each club, and not spend a 
 farthing of his own money or strike one stroke of 
 work. This hath been imitated by the weavers also, 
 though not carried through the kingdom, but confined 
 to the places where they work." Such cases as these 
 may be cited by the score right down to the time 
 the old Combination Laws were repealed ; but the 
 selection I have made will sufiice to illustrate the 
 fact that the principles of Trade Unionism are of 
 ancient character, and anything which has occurred 
 in connection with modern Trade Unions did take 
 place in the early and Middle Ages, and what was 
 said against these combinations in those days is
 
 TRADE UNIOXISM 7 
 
 said against our Trade Unions now. In spite of 
 it all, our country lias so prospered as to be the 
 richest in the world ; while through and by our 
 Trade Unions our working people are among the 
 best paid and work less hours on the average than 
 in any other country, though, of course, there is 
 much room for improvement still, and will improve 
 as each ft-eneration comes alono;. 
 
 The struggles which took place by the work- 
 people in those days cannot be imagined by those 
 of the present day. Strikes and any organised 
 resistance to the employers were put down with a 
 high hand. Legal persecutions were common. Trade 
 Unionists were regarded as rebels and revolutionists. 
 In spite of it all. Trade Unionism could not be put 
 down, and whilst it prevented their healthy growth, 
 it drove the members into violence and sedition. 
 Even in the early part of the eighteenth century, 
 midnight meetings had to be held in the corners of 
 fields, records buried, secret oaths ; and long terms 
 of imprisonment, in many instances penal servitude, 
 to the leadino; officials when found out. Then as 
 now, prejudice existed amongst all the classes other 
 than the labouring class, particularly the bench and 
 the High Courts. There is no case on record where 
 a Trade Union leader was tried with patience and 
 free from some invective or insult, and justice
 
 8 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 appeared to be out of the question. Owing to the 
 inefficient organisation of the police, and the absence 
 of any public prosecutor, these combinations were 
 let alone until some employer was sufficiently in- 
 convenienced to be willing himself to put the law in 
 motion. While all this was being done against com- 
 binations of workmen, the employers themselves 
 combined to their hearts' content, and there is no 
 record of a single case of employers having been 
 prosecuted for illegally combining. The difficulty 
 then, as now, was inability to get at them and their 
 doings, they being able to arrange their affairs in 
 private, whilst workpeople have invariably to do 
 theirs in public or semi-public. To the ordinary 
 politician a combination of employers and a combina- 
 tion of workmen seemed in no way compatible. 
 Francis Place, a great leader of the movement in the 
 early part of the last century, said that "The 
 Combination Laws were considered as absolutely 
 necessary to prevent ruinous extortions of workmen, 
 which, if not thus restrained, would destroy the 
 whole of the Trade, Manufactures, Commerce, and 
 Agriculture of the Nation." We are told the same 
 thing now, and the Times in 1903 set itself out to 
 try and prove it, since when, happily, the "trade, 
 manufactures, and commerce of the nation" have 
 reached an unprecedented record, and continue to 
 go up.
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 9 
 
 Whilst this persecution was going on, and 
 leaders of the Unions being imprisoned without 
 either justice or mercy, in spite of it all the 
 Unions were growing more powerful and numerous 
 each year. The movement later on elicted the 
 sympathy of one of the High Court Justices. It 
 was at a dinner to Joseph Hume, M.P. (one of 
 the few members of Parliament of that day who 
 interested himself most keenly, and who was chiefly 
 instrumental in bringing about the repeal of the 
 Combination Laws in 1824), at Edinburgh, 18th 
 November 1825, that Lord Jeffi-ey said: "A single 
 employer was at liberty at any time to turn oti" 
 the whole of his workmen at once — a hundred or 
 a thousand in number — if they would not accept 
 of the wages he choose to ofier. But it was 
 made an offence for the whole of the workmen 
 to leave that master at once if he refused to 
 give the wages they choose to require." That 
 was considered by some to be the position between 
 1901 and 1906. 
 
 The assemblino- of Parliament in 1825 found 
 the employers of the country thoroughly aroused. 
 Hume and Place had warned the Unions aorainst 
 
 o 
 
 a possible re-action. The great shipbuilding and 
 shipowning interests, whose hostility to Trade 
 Unionism was well known for a century, had the 
 ear of Huskisson, the President of the Board of
 
 10 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 Trade and member for Liverpool. Early in the 
 session he moved for a Committee of Inquiry into 
 the Conduct of the Workmen, and the effect of the 
 recent Act. The Committee was appointed, and 
 consisted almost exclusively of Ministerial bench- 
 nien. Hume, however, was included, he being 
 considered the representative of the workmen. 
 Huskisson intended the Committee to be merely 
 a formal preliminary to the introduction of the 
 Bill which the shipping interests had drafted, 
 under which Trade Unions and even Friendly 
 Societies would have been impossible. It is stated 
 that it was the original intention to call only a 
 few employers to give evidence, to exclude evidence 
 from the other side, and promptly report in favour 
 of the Bill already prepared. Hume and Place, 
 however, arranged for Committees representative of 
 all Unions being formed in London, Manchester, 
 Glasgow, Sheffield, and Newcastle, and these kept 
 up a persistent agitation against the re-enactment 
 of the Combination Laws. Petitions poured into 
 both Houses of Parliament ; also, the passages 
 leading to the Committee-Rooms were kept full 
 of men insisting upon giving evidence to rebut 
 the accusations made by the employers, and way- 
 laying individual members, to whom they explained 
 their grievances. The workmen having gained their 
 freedom of association, were determined to maintain
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 11 
 
 it. The Committee was compelled to hear evidence 
 from the workmen, who testified to the good result 
 of the Act of the previous year. The result was, 
 the shipowners' Bill was abandoned, and the House 
 of Commons was recommended to pass a measure 
 nominally re-establishing the general common law 
 prohibiting combination, but specifically excepted 
 from prosecution associations for the purpose of 
 regulating wages or hours of labour. 
 
 This was like a charter to the organised workers, 
 and great activity was displayed between this and 
 1832. Organisation grew both in membership and 
 societies, and the employers also began to organise 
 on similar lines to meet the working men's societies. 
 The latter, or many of them, became more aggres- 
 sive, a natural corollary on obtaining freedom after 
 sufifering many years of tyranny, oppression, and 
 persecution. It soon became apparent also that a 
 new element sprung up in the ranks of the Trade 
 Unions, which divided them into two, of what 
 may be termed the new and old Unionism. 
 
 The latter exercised greater caution in their 
 procedure, and were not too hasty or precipitate in 
 their actions. The new element was more aggressive 
 and too hasty to make progress, in consequence 
 of which there were many battles fought between 
 workmen and employers, and invariably the latter
 
 12 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 came out successful, and strikes proved disastrous 
 to tlic men, in some instances completely breaking 
 up the Unions. It seemed as if the emancipated 
 organisations were no better able to resist the 
 employers than they were before the repeal of 
 the Combination Laws, and in some instances men 
 resorted to violence and machine-breaking. This 
 seems to prove the futility of sectional organisa- 
 tions, and most of the men turned to wider 
 spheres of political agitation of the radical and 
 socialistic kinds. 
 
 For some years from about 1832 strikes had 
 declined, for there appears to be not one successful 
 strike amongst the large number that took place, 
 the combinations of the employers invariably having 
 proved superior ; but still a few did take place, 
 and the least aggressive of the Unions set them- 
 selves to spread out on national lines, so as to be 
 better equipped to meet the more powerful com- 
 binations of employers, at the same time dis- 
 playing greater activity politically. This brought 
 to the men's side a few members of Parliament 
 who sympathised with them and their movement ; 
 while on the other hand the employers were again 
 looking to Parliament for their protection, bringing 
 great pressure to bear upon ministers and members 
 to repeal the Act of 1825, and bringing actions 
 against the leaders of the Unions under various
 
 TRADE UNTOXISIM 13 
 
 charges. Picketing, however peacefully conducted, 
 was severely penalised, and men were frequently 
 prosecuted under the Master and Servants Act. 
 
 The efforts put forward in favour of social 
 reform seem to have been more successful, and 
 many of the organisations became almost parts of 
 the " Chartist" Movement. Where the organisations 
 did not become part of the Chartist Movement, 
 many of the leaders took very active part in it. 
 
 It is not intended or possible to go very much 
 into the details of the "Chartist" IMovement in 
 this volume, but a passing reference is necessary 
 to show each stage in the progress of what has been 
 the basis upon which the structure of the Trade 
 Unions of to-day has been built. 
 
 The Chartist Movement over, and things got 
 settled down again, another effort was made to 
 revive the Trade Unions, this time with better 
 results. Many new Unions were formed, and others 
 extended on National lines. Strikes were less fre- 
 quent and the hostilities had somewhat diminished. 
 Although the more sensational prosecutions of 
 leaders had been almost abandoned, yet there was 
 almost a continuous persecution of the rank and 
 file tliroughout the country, the interpretation 
 of the law relatiuQ- to masters and workmen ])ein2: 
 always unfavourable to the latter. The Unions 
 therefore set themselves to resist this legal oppres-
 
 14 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 sion, the Miners' Union being the most active in 
 this particular. 
 
 In 1845, as a result of the great revival of Trade 
 Unionism, there was started what was called the 
 " National Association of United Trades," some- 
 thing on the lines of the present Parliamentary 
 Committee and Trades Union Congress. It rendered 
 useful service in its way, mainly as an example of 
 what consolidated trades could accomplish. Amongst 
 the first to consolidate kindred little sections and 
 become a powerful National Union, was the 
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers in 1850. The 
 constitution of the A.S.E. became a model for many 
 others. The several sections in the Carpentery and 
 Joinery trade became the Amalgamated Society of 
 Carpenters and Joiners ; the Tailors drew them- 
 selves together into an Amalgamated Society ; the 
 London Society of Compositors adopted the 
 code. 
 
 In 1844 the Co-operative Movement was started, 
 and was worked up concurrently with the rapid 
 progress the Trade Unions were now making. It 
 was, however, the great strike in the London Building 
 Trades in 1858 that gave the movement a stimulus. 
 The carpenters, masons, and bricklayers had presented 
 a petition for certain demands. One of the employers 
 promptly dismissed one of the men who had presented 
 the memorial. This action led to a strike against
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 15 
 
 this employer. Within a fortnight from this, every 
 master builder in London had closed his shop against 
 the men, and twenty-four thousand men peremptorily 
 thrown out of employment. 
 
 This declaration of war against Trade Unionism 
 gained the men enormous support. Money poured 
 in from all quarters — over £23,000 was subscribed, 
 apart from contributions from the Societies con- 
 cerned. This enabled the men to defeat the employers' 
 aims, although they did not succeed in securing 
 their own. 
 
 This great battle of forces was a great object- 
 lesson ; it revived the feeling of solidarity. Out of 
 it grew the London Trades Council. By 1860 
 councils had been formed in Glasgow, Edinburgh, 
 Sheffield, and Liverpool. In 1861, George Howell 
 became secretary of the London Trades Council, and 
 was succeeded the following year by George Odger. 
 Now the council had got into good hands, with 
 Howell and Odger as leaders, and they were soon 
 augmented by other able men like themselves. 
 They succeeded in getting the council to carry on 
 a vigorous agitation for the amendment of the 
 Master and Servants Act. Demonstrations were 
 organised in the principal towns throughout the 
 country, petitions to Parliament, deputations lobby- 
 ing the House of Commons, and Conferences of Trade 
 Unionists and legislatures, until at last they succeeded
 
 16 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 in 1867 in getting a Bill passed remedying the 
 grossest injustices. This, the first success of the 
 Trade Unions in the political arena, strengthened 
 their confidence in Parliamentary agitation. 
 
 During the four years the agitation was carried 
 on for the Amendment of the Master and Servants 
 Act, there was a growing uneasiness owing to 
 nothing beino- done in connection with conditions 
 of labour, whilst at the same time the Unions were 
 growing stronger in membership and financially. 
 The employers were correspondingly strengthening 
 their position, when again a renewal of the employers' 
 weapon, the lock-out, was used vigorously, and the 
 hostilities grew bitter once more. The employers 
 were demanding to have Trade Unions put down, 
 and holdino- out the terrorism of Trade Unionism 
 
 o 
 
 as a nightmare. In this great turmoil many outrages 
 were once more committed, which ended by the 
 explosion of a can of gunpowder in a workman's 
 house in Sheffield. 
 
 Then there arose a great demand for an inquiry 
 into the conduct and actions of the Trade Unions, 
 in which the Trade Unions themselves joined. A 
 Royal Commission was appointed in 1867, which 
 sat for three years, and upon which the Trade 
 Unionists had one good friend and sympathiser in 
 Mr. Frederic Harrison, whose interest and opinion 
 has been of great value in the more recent move-
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 17 
 
 meot for restoring the position of Trade Unions 
 to the ante-Taff Vale decision. 
 
 In the same year a very important and far- 
 reachino- decision had been given in the case of 
 the Boilermakers' Society. The Society had occa- 
 sion to take proceedings against a treasurer of one 
 of their branches for embezzlins; the funds. The 
 magistrates refused to convict, and held that the 
 Society could not proceed against the treasurer 
 under the Friendly Societies Act ; it being a Trade 
 Union, was outside the scope of that measure. The 
 case was carried up to the High Court of Queen's 
 Bench, where four judges confirmed the decision, 
 giving additional reasons that the objects of the 
 Union, if not since 1825 actually criminal, were 
 so far in restraint of trade as to render the Society 
 an illegal association. 
 
 This caused some consternation amonost the 
 
 o 
 
 leaders of the Unions. Trade Unionism was now 
 assailed by the employers and the judges, and it 
 was not difficult to observe that the employers were 
 determined to make a stronc}: case aQ;ainst the Unions 
 before the Royal Commission. Evidence w^as pro- 
 duced, sometimes of a startling character, and the 
 employers spared nothing that was likely to con- 
 vince the Commissioners of the absolute necessity 
 of re-enacting the old Combination Laws. On the 
 other hand, the leaders of the Trade Unions, 
 
 2
 
 18 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 assisted by a few members of Parliament and others, 
 sjDared nothing to prove the higher objects and 
 ideals of the Trade Unions, and the condemnation 
 of the outrao;es which had been committed. It 
 was shown that the influence of central Executive 
 Councils, and the formation of public opinion among 
 Trade Unions, tended to restrain the more aggres- 
 sive and exciting actions of the men embittered in 
 a local dispute. Several conferences were held in 
 London, Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, 
 where resolutions were passed in support of the 
 claims of the Unions. At the same time a change 
 was coming over the political situation, for the Reform 
 Bill of 1867 had given working men the Franchise 
 in the boroughs, and the leaders w^ere not slow to 
 use to their own advantage this new power given 
 to them. The Trades Councils throuo-hout the 
 country, followed by the Councils of many of the 
 larger Societies, issued circulars urging their members 
 to vote only for candidates who would support the 
 Trade Union demands. 
 
 In 1869, Mr. Frederic Harrison drafted a Bill 
 embodying the principles contained in his minority 
 report, which was introduced by Mr. Mundella and 
 Mr. Tom Hughes. Its provisions received the de- 
 nunciations of the emjDloyers, but it gained some 
 support from the newly elected members of Parlia- 
 ment, and received a strong backing outside. The
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 19 
 
 Government of the day and the greater number of 
 their supporters were still hostile to Trade Unions, 
 and were anxious to shelve the Bill. The Trade 
 Unionists, however, were determined to press their 
 claim forward, and from every part of the country 
 great pressure was brought to bear upon the 
 members of Parliament. A great demonstration 
 was also held in the Exeter Hall, at which Mr. 
 Mundella and Mr. Hughes expressed their determina- 
 tion to make the Government and the House vote 
 on the detested Bill. The Government, finding it 
 difiicult to evade the question any longer, aban- 
 doned its hostility, and allowed the Second Reading 
 to take place, upon the understanding that a 
 Government Bill should be introduced next year. 
 A provisional measure, giving temporary protection 
 to Trade Union funds, was hurried through at the 
 end of the Session, pending the introduction of 
 the larger Bill. This was the first triumph of the 
 political action of the Trade Unions. 
 
 The next Session found the Government rather 
 reluctant to carry out its promise, but the Trade 
 Unionists were determined not to let the matter 
 rest, and continued to ])ring pressure to bear upon 
 the Government, after which the Home Secretary 
 (Mr. Bruce) produced in 1871 a Bill which caused 
 intense interest amongst the Trade Unionists. The 
 Government proposed to concede all the points
 
 20 TKADE UNIONISM 
 
 upon which it had been specially pressed. No 
 Trade Union was to be illegal because it was 
 " in restraint of trade." Every Union was to be 
 entitled to be registered, if its rules did not 
 contravene the criminal law. It gave complete 
 protection of the Union funds, and prevented them 
 being sued or proceeded against in a Court of Law. 
 
 Section 4 of the Act states : 
 
 *' Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to 
 entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the 
 object of directly enforcing or recovering damages 
 for the breach of any of the following agreements, 
 namely : (1) Any agreement between members of a 
 Trade Union as such, concerning the conditions on 
 which any members for the time being of such Trade 
 Union shall or shall not sell their goods, transact 
 business, employ or be employed." 
 
 This is the principal section dealing with the 
 conduct of the Unions : in *' restraint of trade " ; the 
 other sub-sections of this Section apply to the 
 members and the Unions as such. Nothing, however, 
 seems to be necessary to make it clear that the Trade 
 Unions were and would be immune from the Law so 
 far as civil proceedings were concerned, or to enable 
 damages to be recovered from the Unions. 
 
 To bring about this success the Trade Unionists 
 had been most active. In 1868 a large National 
 Trades Union Congress was called together at Man-
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 21 
 
 Chester, when a Parliamentary Committee was formed 
 to assist the movement in securing the reforms 
 aimed at. 
 
 From this time forward the Trades Union Con- 
 gress became a permanent institution. In 1871, 
 concurrently with the passing of the Trade Union 
 Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed, 
 which largely nullified the main principles of the 
 Trade Union Act, or gave opportunities to em- 
 ployers to proceed against workmen without much 
 difficulty. The Parliamentary Committee, therefore, 
 set itself to work to get the Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act repealed, and for four years persistently 
 agitated for this, believing it to be an indignity to 
 the workmen, as well as hampering them in bringing 
 about improvements in the general conditions of 
 labour. The legislation of 1871 was regarded by 
 the Government as the final solution of the question. 
 But some of the Judges declared that it only made 
 the object of a strike legal, whilst it left the means 
 by which the object was to be attained illegal. It 
 was therefore no advantao-e to have a strike made 
 
 o 
 
 legal if all means by which it was to be attained or 
 maintained were illegal. The employers again took 
 advantage of this, and men and women were im- 
 prisoned with impunity. For instance, in South 
 Wales seven women were imprisoned for saying 
 " Bah " to one blackleg.
 
 22 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 These innumerable petty prosecutions, amounting 
 to persecution, caused a great deal of irritation, and 
 spurred on the Trade Unionists to insist upon the 
 repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Re- 
 presentation and pressure were brought to bear upon 
 the Government and members of Parliament. Mr. 
 Gladstone, as Prime Minister in 1872, refused to 
 admit that there was any necessity for further 
 legislation and declined to take the matter up, and 
 during that Session the Parliamentary Committee 
 failed to get a member willing to introduce a Bill 
 for the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment 
 Act. 
 
 The Trade Union leaders, however, rather than 
 relaxing their efforts, put forward greater efforts and 
 energies than ever, adding to their side thousands of 
 politicians in all the industrial centres. Leaflets 
 were published setting out details of the prosecutions ; 
 Tracts for Trade Unionists were written by Mr. 
 Crompton and Mr. Frederic Harrison. The Trades 
 Union Congresses in 1872, 1873, and 1874 severely 
 condemned those members of Parliament who treated 
 the Parliamentary Committee with contempt. The 
 General Election was now approaching near, and the 
 pressure upon the political parties was increased. 
 Lists of questions to Parliamentary candidates were 
 prepared embodying the legislative claims of Labour. 
 It was also made clear, no one would receive the
 
 TRADE UXIONISM 23 
 
 support of Trade Unionists unless his answers would 
 be satisfactory. 
 
 At the Trades Union Congress in 1874 it was 
 reported that several Societies, including the Miners, 
 had actually voted money for Parliamentary candi- 
 dates. At the General Election no less than thirteen 
 candidates went to the poll. The result was Mr. 
 Alex. Macdonald and Mr. Thomas Burt were returned 
 as the first Labour representatives in Parliament. 
 The Conservative Party, having now got into powei-, 
 were keen to observe the electioneering attitude 
 and power of the Trade Unionists. The Trade 
 Unionists assumed that the Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act would immediately be repealed. They 
 were, however, disappointed when it was announced 
 that a Royal Commission was to be appointed to 
 inquire into the operations of the " Labour Laws." 
 The Trade Union leaders regarded this as an 
 attempt to shelve the question, and refused to become 
 members of the Commission or to oive evidence 
 before it. The Home Secretary gave most specific 
 assurances that the Government were in real earnest 
 about bringing in legislation at the earliest oppor- 
 tunity ; then Mr. Macdonald allowed himself to 
 serve on the Commission, and Mr. George Shipton, 
 Secretary of the London Trades Council, gave 
 evidence. 
 
 In 1875 the Home Secretary introduced two
 
 24 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 Bills for altering both the Criminal and Civil Law. 
 These were so amended in Committee by the efforts 
 of Mr. Mundella, the two Labour members, and others, 
 that they became Acts completely satisfactory to 
 the Trade Unionists. The Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act was unconditionally repealed, and by the 
 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act definite 
 and reasonable limits were set to the application of 
 the law of conspiracy in trade disputes. The Master 
 and Servants Act, 1867, was replaced by the 
 Employers and Workmen Act. Masters and 
 servants became as employers and workmen, equal 
 to a civil contract. Imprisonment for breach of 
 engagement was abolished. Peaceful picketing was 
 expressly permitted. Collective bargaining, with all 
 its necessary accompaniments, was, after half a 
 century of hard struggling, fully recognised by the 
 laws of the land. 
 
 This was, indeed, a great triumph for the Trade 
 Unionists, They were now free to set to work to 
 improve the conditions of the toiling masses, to 
 raise their standard of life. 
 
 Trade Unions also grew in membership and 
 finances. The Trades Union Congress made steady 
 growth in membership and political influence. It 
 carried on the agitation outside, and brought pressure 
 to bear inside the House of Commons ; and largely 
 by this and the able advocacy of ]\Iacdonald and
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 25 
 
 Burt, tlieii- representatives in Parliament, was secured 
 the abolition of the Truck Act and the enlargement 
 of the Factory and Workshops Act. 
 
 At the General Election of 1880 the two Labour 
 members were supported by the return of ]Mr. 
 Henry Broadhurst. In the same year, after man}- 
 years of agitation by the Amalgamated Society of 
 Railway Servants and the Parliamentary Committee, 
 the Employers' Lialjility Act came into operation. 
 In 1882 the Metalliferous Mines Act became law. 
 It was in the same year also that Sir William 
 Harcourt appointed the first workmen Inspectors of 
 Factories. In 1883 tlie Factories Act was extended 
 to bakehouses and white-lead works. 
 
 In the General Election of 1885, when the Liberal 
 party was returned, the number of Labour Members 
 of Parliament was increased to eleven, and, for the 
 first time, Sir George Trevelyan, as Chancellor of the 
 Duchy of Lancaster, appointed four representatives 
 of Trade Unions to the Magisterial Bench. For the 
 first time in the history of Parliament also, a Labour 
 Kepresentative was appointed to the Ministry as 
 Under-Secretary of State. Mr. Henry Broadhurst, 
 as Under-Secretary to the Home Office, rendered 
 very valuable services in that capacity. 
 
 Mr. Muudella, who was President of the Board 
 of Trade, created the Labour Department, and 
 appointed the General Secretary of the Amalgamated
 
 26 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 Society of Engineers, Mr. John Burnett, as its 
 correspondent. 
 
 After the General Election in 1886 the Labour 
 members were reduced by two, and from that to 
 1892 there was not much industrial legislation 
 adopted. There was, however, the Mines Con- 
 solidation Act, and a mild amendment of the Truck 
 Act. The most important item was the Fair 
 Contract Resolution in 1889. 
 
 By this time the conditions of the workers had 
 been considerably improved, whicli caused them to 
 become apathetic and indifferent towards Labour 
 leoislation. The failure of social lesfislation between 
 1886 and 1892 stirred up the Trade Union leaders; 
 and the Trades Union Congress had been pressing 
 forward their demands for social legislation, and 
 particularly an amendment of Employers' Liability 
 Act. This resulted at the General Election in 1892 
 in fourteen Labour Representatives being returned. 
 In 1893 the Government brought in an Employers' 
 Liability Bill, out of which no employer could 
 contract ; it passed the Commons, but when it 
 arrived in the House of Lords, how^ever, Lord 
 Dudley introduced an amendment enabling em- 
 ployers to contract out of its provisions. On this 
 being received back in the Commons, Mr. Asquith 
 and other members of the Government consulted the 
 Parliamentary Committee, when it was decided to
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 27 
 
 reject it. It was in moving the discharge of this 
 Bill that Mr. Gladstone made his famous protest 
 against the persistence of the House of Lords in 
 interfering with, and preventing the enactment of, 
 Labour Legislation. 
 
 Fifteen additional workmen representatives were 
 appointed factory inspectors, and the rules for- 
 bidding Government workers joining Trade Unions 
 were abolished this same year. 
 
 In 1893 the Railway Regulations (Hours) Act 
 was passed, empowering the Board of Trade to 
 interfere in cases where railway workers engaged in 
 the manipulation of traffic were considered as being 
 employed excessive hours, — the result of years of 
 agitation by the Amalgamated Society of Railway 
 Servants and the Parliamentary Committee. 
 
 In the same year also, the Government abolished 
 Income Tax on wages under three pounds per week. 
 
 In 1893, also, the "Independent Labour Party" 
 was formed, which carried out a vigorous pro- 
 paganda for " Independent Labour Representation " ; 
 but in 1895, when the Conservative Party was 
 returned, the number of Labour Representatives 
 in the House was reduced by three. The only 
 legislation of any importance directly affecting 
 labour was the remitting of school fees in perpetuity, 
 an amendment of the Truck Act, and the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act. In 18^9 the
 
 28 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 South African War broke out, so that little else 
 could get the attention of the Government. In 
 1900 the Government went to the country mainly 
 on the South African War issue, and were again 
 returned. 
 
 Whilst the Parliamentary Committee was con- 
 tinually persevering in promoting and demanding 
 legislation in the interest of the workers, the 
 individual Unions were doing their part in im- 
 proving the general conditions of labour. Hours 
 have been reduced, wages increased, Sunday 
 labour reduced, and enhanced payment secured 
 when it has to be performed, overtime paid for 
 at enhanced rates where it cannot be abolished, 
 and many other details in the regulation of the 
 conditions of employment. In the process of this 
 reformation many conflicts had taken place by 
 means of Strikes and Lock-outs ; but in spite of 
 them all, our Industries prospered, and there is 
 a total absence of those ruined conditions of our 
 Factories, Mines, and Railways ; neither did it ever 
 occur to anyone, employers, Judges, Lawyers, or 
 Trade Unionists, that Trade Unions were liable 
 for damages under Civil proceedings until the 
 famous TafF Vale Strike in August 1900. 
 
 I have only briefly referred to the various 
 subjects, and, obviously, cannot deal with them 
 at length in this volume, but they serve to show
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 29 
 
 how, from 1900 onward, the same things were 
 said about Trade Unions, the same obstacles put 
 in the way of Trade Union leaders, the same 
 political efforts and pressure liad to be Ijrought 
 to bear, and how in the end they succeeded as in 
 1871, 1875, and 187G. 
 
 In 1892 there was started a somethino- — all 
 
 o 
 
 that was known of it was two or three individuals 
 who called themselves — the "National Free Labour 
 Association." Nothing was known of its rules, 
 if there were any, or its constitution, if it had one, 
 but only its General Secretary and one or two 
 organisers. They obtained the necessary funds to 
 maintain the officials by subscriptions from 
 employers, and they held a delegate meeting each 
 year, at which resolutions, inspired by employers, 
 and sometimes, apparently, the resolutions and 
 speeches supporting them, were typewritten by 
 the employers or their agents. 
 
 The objects of this body were not known, but 
 their efforts were very familiar. They played 
 the part of what is known in America as " Union 
 Smashers," and they never failed to support the 
 Conservative party at all times. By these means 
 they were fairly successful in obtaining funds. It 
 will also be remembered always ])y Trade Unionists 
 how the late Lord Salisbury, in 1897, referred 
 to the Trade Unions as "cruel organisations." At
 
 30 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 the same time there was a good deal of secret 
 arrangements going on amongst the employers with 
 the view of making an attack upon the Trade 
 Unions on a larger scale. The principal actors 
 in this were the engineering employers, and the 
 following correspondence will be found to be 
 interesting, and show what was passing through 
 the minds of employers long before the TafF Vale 
 Strike in 1900. 
 
 Circular 
 
 "From the Engineering Employers' Federation 
 TO Lord Wemyss and the Free Labour 
 Protection Association. 
 
 " 2Qth Septeiahcr 1898. 
 
 " The Engineering Employers' Federation has 
 now been re-organised, and will in future embrace 
 all employers whose business is allied to the 
 Engineering interest in its most widely diversified 
 form. The Committee therefore give you a hearty 
 invitation to attend the Conference which is 
 called at 4.30 p.m. on 3rd October at the Hotel 
 Metropole, to consider the new rules under which 
 the Federation will in future be conducted. The 
 Conference will also consider a proposal to accept 
 into the Federation other than allied trades, and 
 if need be to change the title of the Federation, 
 so as to apply to all cognate trades having 
 pressing and immediate grievances with tyrannical
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 31 
 
 Trade Unions. A full agenda will, however, be 
 sent you as soon as we are advised of your intention 
 to be represented. Please consider this as strictly 
 private, to be destroyed if not recognised." 
 
 "Clauses in Federation of Employers' 
 Agreement. 
 
 " Objects. — The Federation shall use every means 
 in its power to protect the varied interests of 
 British Trade and Manufacture at home and abroad, 
 by maintaining and defending absolute freedom 
 of contract between employers and employed, and 
 exercising the right of conducting and managing 
 their individual businesses without interference 
 from Trade Unions either inside or outside tlie 
 works. 
 
 ''Benefits. — The Federation cannot insure 
 isolated benefits, but it guarantees to provide for 
 any firm or firms engaged in a dispute with a hond 
 fide Trade Union, the full average profits on a year's 
 turnover so long as the dispute lasts. The dispute 
 must in all cases be one proclaimed by a Trade 
 Union, or, on the other hand, sanctioned by the 
 Federation. The profits returnable to affected firms 
 will be based upon the average profits realised 
 during the five years previous to the dispute. 
 
 " DisjnUes. — The Federation reserves to itself 
 the riglit to stop a dispute at any time l)y any 
 settlement agreed upon by the Dispute Committee, 
 but no firm or firms, being engaged in any dispute,
 
 32 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 must, under any circumstances, enter into negotia- 
 tions with, or acknowledge in any way negotiations 
 from, the Trade Unions, under the penalty of 
 instant dismissal from the Federation. Negotiations 
 and communication of all kinds must be undertaken 
 by the Federation only." 
 
 \_Private.'] 
 
 " Notification. 
 
 " Odoher 1898. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I have to inform you that the 
 Conference, the agenda of which I forwarded to you 
 on the 7th instant, will be held on the original date 
 fixed at the preliminary meeting on 20th September, 
 and at the time and place decided upon. 
 
 " My Committee are desirous of laying before the 
 Conference a report as full and comprehensive as 
 possible as to the rates of wages and conditions 
 obtaining in your works, and how far, if at all, these 
 have been, or are, regulated by the Trade Unions 
 affected. The information wdll be strictly regarded 
 as confidential as between my Committee and your- 
 self, and will not be used in any other way than that 
 mentioned in my circular to you on the 31st prox. 
 Kindly reply early. 
 
 ''Note. — Communications for the present must 
 be addressed simply to the Secretary, Employers' 
 Parliamentary Committee, and not either to myself 
 or his Lordship the President, at the above address. 
 — I am, dear Sir, yours truly, 
 
 " Pv. Miller."
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 33 
 
 Lord Wemyss auci Miller and others attended 
 this Conference, and their influence and weight told 
 so well that the new Federation agreed to form a 
 Parliamentary Council for active political work. 
 There were, however, apparently some scruples 
 among the more timid of the employers as to the 
 advisability of the Federation showing its real 
 purpose, namely, that of Trade Union smashing, 
 by taking upon itself questionable work of this kind. 
 Lord Wemyss and his Association therefore offered 
 their services. They had no character to lose, like 
 many of the employers. 
 
 The Conference broke up without anything 
 definite being done in the matter of widening the 
 scope of the Federation, so as to include all employers 
 having grievances, etc. 
 
 But negotiations and arrangements were, at the 
 time, being continued. 
 
 Meanwhile the new and important departure 
 agreed upon at the instance of Lord Wemyss was 
 made a concrete fact at a private meeting at the 
 Free Labour Association Offices, at which representa- 
 tives of the Engineering Employers' Committee and 
 nearly every trade interested in the new Federation 
 attended. It was at this meeting that the Confer- 
 ence of employers was agreed upon, and arranged 
 to be held at Manchester on 15th November 1898. 
 
 At the outset the Conference was intended to be 
 3
 
 34 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 fully representative of, and to act on behalf of not 
 only the Engineering Employers' Federation, but also 
 the Shipping Federation, the Master Builders, Master 
 Stone Masons, Master Boiler Makers, and, indeed, all 
 those industries wherein the Trade Union element is 
 a powerful and respected factor. 
 
 But again there were many of the firms who did 
 not at all care about being tied to the tail of Wemyss 
 and Co., so they made a strong representation on the 
 subject before the Conference was held. It was 
 therefore resolved to confine the delegation to those 
 industries having special grievances against the Trade 
 Unions, and whose active su|)port and sympathy 
 Lord Wemyss and his Association had always 
 received. Nevertheless, several firms sent in applica- 
 tion to be included on any Executive which the 
 Conference might decide to create. 
 
 Thus the Lathrenders and others were included. 
 Notwithstanding the professions of Lord Wemyss 
 and his Association, the true purpose of the New 
 Council was to thwart and counteract the Parlia- 
 mentary efi'orts of the Trade Unions. This was to 
 be done on behalf of the Federation first, and next 
 the sympathising employers behind the Federation. 
 It was a work of such questionable character that only 
 a few of the most uncompromising employers would 
 agree to undertake it. But they were of no use of 
 themselves, so Lord Wemyss was invited in.
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 35 
 
 When his Lordship and the Council had prepared 
 the way, and the respectability of the Federation was 
 confirmed, the gigantic combination of employers so 
 freely spoken of a short time previously, was to 
 assert itself, and trouble was to immediately begin. 
 
 Several industries, notably the Boiler Makers, 
 Master Builders, Masons, etc., were spoiling for a 
 fight, and strenuously desired to enter the Federation, 
 so as to at once commence hostilities. But the time 
 was not yet. 
 
 Everything, it would seem, depended upon the 
 Trade Unions and their scheme of Federation, which 
 was to be decided upon at Manchester on 24th 
 January 1899. 
 
 The Article Club was takinsi; a sfreat interest in 
 the matter, and several rich members were actually 
 working for and financing the new Council. 
 
 From March 1897 to June 1898, hundreds of 
 donations, from £3000 down to £20, were made by 
 firms affected and unaffected, to assist firms employ- 
 incT blackleo; labour and firms standing- idle throuoh 
 the Engineering dispute. 
 
 On 24th November 1898, £35,000 was given or 
 guaranteed to the new Employers' Council for Parlia- 
 mentary and propaganda work by Messrs. Vickers, Sons 
 &; Maxim. The Article Club decided to discuss the 
 whole question of Federation of employers and 
 employed at an early montldy dinner. A circular
 
 36 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 was prepared and sent to certain M.P.'s known to be 
 sympathetic, enumerating proposed labour legislation 
 affecting employers and vested interests generally. 
 
 Nothing further came of this scheme. Appar- 
 ently many of the employers did not care to embark 
 upon such a struggle as must inevitably have followed 
 such a desperate attempt. This attempt to organise 
 such a gigantic scheme, however, must have made 
 some widespread impressions upon the minds of 
 others in sympathy with employers and men moving 
 in the society of employers, and particularly stimu- 
 lating those who, while approving of the scheme, 
 could not embark upon without the whole agreed 
 to it. 
 
 The strike on the Taff Vale Eailway in August 
 1900, however, gave the opportunity desired. This 
 strike did not differ from many other strikes between 
 1876 and then, but the general manager of the Taff 
 Vale determined to fight it out in the Courts. In 
 the Chancery Court he found in Mr. Justice Farwell's 
 decision much cause for rejoicing, the judge having 
 decided against the Union, the Amalgamated Society 
 of Eailway Servants. This came as a staggering 
 blow to the Trade Union world. The Union 
 appealed, and the Court of Appeal unanimously 
 reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Farwell, and 
 decided in favour of the Union. The Company 
 then appealed to the House of Lords, when Mr.
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 37 
 
 Justice Farwell's decision was upheld. It may be 
 well to record the opinions of the Law Lords here : 
 
 In the House of Lords. 
 
 22nd July 190L 
 
 Before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghten, Lord 
 Shand, Lord Brampton, and Lord Lindley. 
 The TafF Vale Railway Company v. The 
 Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. 
 
 Their Lordships delivered judgment as follows : 
 
 The Lord Chancellor : "In this case I am 
 content to adopt the judgment of Mr. Justice 
 Farwell, with which I entirely concur, and I cannot 
 find any satisfactory answer to that judgment in 
 the judgment of the Court of Appeal which over- 
 ruled it. If the Legislature has created a thing 
 which can own property, which can employ servants, 
 which can inflict injury, it must be taken, I think, 
 to have impliedly given the power to make it 
 suable in a Court of Law for injuries purposely 
 done by its authority and procurement. I move, 
 your lordships, that the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal be reversed, and that of Mr. Justice Farwell 
 restored." 
 
 Lord Macnaghten : " My lords, I am of the 
 same opinion. Although I should be well content 
 to adopt the judgment of ^Ir. Justice Farwell and 
 the reasons he has given, I will venture to add a
 
 38 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 few words of my own, partly out of respect for the 
 Master of the Rolls, from whose opinion I never 
 dissent without the greatest hesitation, and partly 
 in deference to the arguments of counsel, w^hich 
 before your lordships has ranged over a wider field, 
 and on the part of the respondents has, I think, 
 assumed a somewhat bolder tone than in the Court 
 below. The case divides itself into two questions. 
 One may be described as a question of substance ; 
 the other is rather a question of form. Parliament 
 has lesfalised Trade Unions whether reoistered or 
 not ; if registered they enjoy certain advantages. 
 The respondent society is a registered Trade Union, 
 subject to such control as an annual general meeting 
 can exercise ; the government of the society is in 
 the hands of its Executive Committee, a small body 
 with vast powers, including an unstinted power of 
 disposition over the funds of the Union, except so far 
 as it may be interfered with by the annual general 
 meeting or restricted by the operation of the society 
 rules, of which, in case of doubt, the Executive 
 Committee is the sole authorised interpreter. ]\Ir. 
 Haldane pointed out, what is true enough, that the 
 funds of the society were contributed for benefit 
 purposes as well as for trade purposes, and he asked 
 your lordships that if those funds were made 
 answerable for the consequences of such acts as 
 those complained of in the present case, the widow 
 and the orphan might suffer in consequence of the 
 ill-advised or illesfal action of the Executive of the 
 Union. At first sight that seems a plausible argu-
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 39 
 
 ment. But the truth is that all the funds of the 
 society, for whatever purposes they may be collected, 
 form a common fund. That, I believe, is the case 
 with most, if not all, Trade Unions. If you take 
 up the report of the Royal Commission on Trade 
 Unions, and turn to the statement accompanying 
 the minority report, you will see that there was 
 nothing on which the advocates of Trade Unions 
 insisted upon more strongly or more firmly than 
 on the right of unions to employ the whole of 
 their funds, if they choose, for the purposes of 
 strikes, and in connection therewith. The sub- 
 stantial question, therefore, as ]\[r. Justice Farwell 
 put it, is this : Has the Legislature authorised the 
 creation of numerous bodies of men, capable of 
 owning great wealth and of acting by agents, with 
 absolutely no responsibility for the wrongs they may 
 do to other persons by the use of that wealth and 
 the employment of those agents ? In my opinion 
 Parliament has done nothing of the kind. I can 
 find nothino- in the Acts of 1871 and 1875, or either 
 of them, from beginning to end, to warrant such a 
 notion. Nor, indeed, was anything of the kind 
 contemplated by the minority of the members of 
 the Royal Commission on Trade Unions whose views 
 found acceptance with the Legislature. In par. 4 
 of the minority report they say : ' It should be 
 specially provided that, except so far as combinations 
 are thereby exempted from criminal prosecutions, 
 nothing should afiect the liability of every person 
 to be sued at law or in equity in respect of any
 
 40 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 damage which may have been occasioned to any 
 other person through tlie act or default of the person 
 so sued.' Now, if the liability of every person in 
 this respect was to be preserved, it would seem to 
 follow that it was intended by the strongest 
 advocates of Trade Unionism that persons should 
 be liable for concerted as well as for individual 
 action. And for this purpose it seems to me that 
 it cannot matter in the least whether persons acting 
 in concert be combined together in a Trade Union 
 or collected and united in any other form of associa- 
 tion. Then, if Trade Unions are not above the law, 
 the only remaining question, as it seems to me, is 
 one of form — how are these bodies to be sued ? I 
 have no doubt whatever that a Trade Union, whether 
 registered or unregistered, may be sued in a repre- 
 sentative action if the persons selected as defendants 
 be persons who, from their position, may be taken 
 fairly to represent the body. As regards this point 
 Mr. Haldane relied on the case of Temperton v. 
 Russell, but Temperton v. Russell, as I have said 
 before, was an absurd case. The persons there 
 selected as representatives of the various Unions 
 intended to be sued were selected in defiance of 
 all rule and principle. They were not the managers 
 of the Union, they had no control over it or over 
 its trades. Their names seem to have been taken 
 at random for the purpose, I suppose, of spreading 
 a general sense of insecurity among the Unions who 
 ought to have been sued, if sued at all, either in 
 their registered name, if that be permissible, or by
 
 TRADE UNTOXISM 41 
 
 their proper officers — the members of their Executive 
 Committees and their Trustees. Mr, Haldane, indeed, 
 was bold enough to say that if a wrong was com- 
 mitted by a body of persons acting in concert who 
 were too numerous to be made defendants in an 
 action, the person injured would be without remedy 
 unless he could fasten upon the individuals who 
 actually did or were actually doing the wrong. 
 Then he was asked what would he say to such a 
 case as this. Suppose there were a manufactory 
 belonging to a co-operative society unregistered, 
 and composed of a great number of persons (as 
 there well might be, but for the provision in the 
 Companies Act making illegal an unregistered 
 trading society consisting of more than 20 members), 
 and suppose such a manufactory were poisoning a 
 stream or fouling the atmosphere to the injury of 
 its neighbours, might it do so with impunity ? Mr. 
 Haldane said, ' Yes, unless you could pounce upon 
 the individual offenders.' It seems to me that this 
 is a reductio ad absurdum. I should be sorry to 
 think that the law was so powerless, and, therefore, 
 it seems to me that there would be no difficulty in 
 suing a Trade Union in such a case as this if it be 
 sued in a representative action by persons who 
 would fairly and properly represent it. The further 
 question remains, may a registered Trade Union be 
 sued in and by its registered name? For my part 
 I cannot see any difficulty in the way of such a suit. 
 It is quite true that a registered Trade Union is not 
 a corporation, but it has a registered name and a
 
 42 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 registered office. The registered name is nothiDg 
 more than a collective name for all the members. 
 The registered office is the place where it carries 
 on business. A partnership firm, which is not a 
 corporation, nor, I suppose, a legal entity, may now 
 be sued in the firm's name. And when I find that 
 the Act of Parliament actually provides for a 
 registered Trade Union being sued in certain cases 
 by its registered name as a Trade Union, and does 
 not say that the cases specified are the only cases 
 in which it may be so sued, I can see nothing 
 contrary to principle or contrary to the provisions 
 of the Trade Union Acts in holding that a Trade 
 Union may be sued by its registered name. I am 
 therefore of opinion that the appeal should be 
 allowed, and the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell 
 restored with costs here and below." 
 
 Lord Brampton : " I desire to concur with the 
 words of the Lord Chancellor in adopting the 
 judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell. I do not think 
 this House is called upon to do more to-day than 
 to determine w^hether a prima facie case has 
 been disclosed by the railway company, entitling 
 them to the injunction they claim, and whether 
 the society can be sued in its registered name. 
 I think that both these questions ought to be 
 answered in the affirmative. The lawless acts 
 complained of were clearly wrongful acts, which 
 justified the company in seeking to have them 
 restrained by those who caused them to be 
 committed ; and, inasmuch as the acts were done
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 43 
 
 by men acting as agents of the society in further- 
 ance of a strike sanctioned and conducted by the 
 society through its authorised officers, the society 
 is responsible for them. The other question was 
 whether the society can be sued by its registered 
 name. I see no reason why that question should 
 not also be answered in the affirmative. A legal 
 entity has been founded under the Trade Union 
 Act by the registration of the society, and the 
 legal entity so created, though not perhaps in 
 the strict sense a corporation, is nevertheless a 
 newly created corporate body, and by statute called 
 a Trade Union, consisting of many thousand persons ; 
 and the omission from the statute of any provision 
 that this body should be sued or be capable of suing 
 by any other name than its registered name, appears 
 to me to lead to no conclusion except that by that 
 name and no other the Legislature intended it should 
 be known and be known for all purposes, including 
 legal proceedings, provided that no other provision 
 militated against such a construction as, for instance, 
 in the case of trustees by section 9, who really hold 
 property for and have personal property in the 
 society. I may refer also with reference to the 
 effect of the rules of this present registration, that 
 I find on page 91 of the appendix in sub-Rule 3 
 of Rule 7, 'Tlie funds of each and every branch 
 shall be the common property of the society.' 
 If that be so, it would Ijc impossible to have 
 remuneration or recompense for any wrongful acts 
 unless it were that the society could be sued as
 
 44 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 a wliole. I therefore think that the judgment 
 of the Court of Appeal should be reversed, and that 
 of Mr. Justice Farwell restored." 
 
 Lord Macnaghten then read a written judgment 
 by Lord Shand : " I am also of opinion that the 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal should be recalled 
 and the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell restored, 
 and an injunction granted in the terms settled by 
 his lordship. The admirable judgment of Mr. 
 Justice Farwell, in whose reasoning I entirely agree, 
 makes it unnecessary again to go over the provisions 
 of the statutes of 1871 and 1875, particularly after 
 what has been said by your lordships. I shall only 
 add a few words in regard to the judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal. It is true, as repeatedly stated 
 both by Mr. Justice Farwell and by the Master of 
 the Rolls, that by neither of the statutes are Trade 
 Unions, although registered, declared to be incor- 
 porated, which would as a consequence give them 
 a right to sue and render them liable to be sued 
 in the society's name. It is equally true, as the 
 Master of the Rolls observed, that the right to 
 sue and the liability to be sued may be conferred 
 by statute either expressly or by implication. In 
 the words of the learned Master of the Rolls, enact- 
 ments ' must be found either express or implied 
 enabling this to be done.' I agree in thinking 
 there is no express enactment to that effect, but, 
 with great deference, in my opinion, the power of 
 suing and liability to be sued in the society's name 
 is clearly and necessarily implied by the provisions
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 45 
 
 of the statutes. If Mr. Justice Farwell had not 
 carefully gone over and pointed out those provisions 
 in his judgment, I should have thought it right now 
 to do so, but I content myself by referring to what 
 he has so well said. A res^istered Trade Union has 
 an exclusive right to the name in which it is 
 registered ; a right to hold a limited amount of 
 real estate and unlimited personal estate for its 
 own use and benefit and the benefit of its members ; 
 the power of acting by its agents and trustees ; 
 and is liable to be sued for penalties, as it appears 
 to me, in the society's name. I am clearly of 
 opinion that these and the provisions generally of 
 the statutes imply a liability on the society to be 
 sued in its Trade Union name, and a privilege of 
 thus suing. I am further of opinion that, as the 
 society by its agents is alleged to have been 
 violating the law as stated by the appellants and 
 sworn in their affidavits, the appellants are entitled 
 to an injunction not only against the agents but 
 the society itself for whom their servants and agents 
 were acting." 
 
 Lord LiNDLEY : "The problem how to adapt 
 legal proceedings to unincorporated societies con- 
 sisting of many members is by no means new. 
 The rules as to parties to common law actions 
 were too rigid for practical i>urposes when those 
 rules had to be applied to such societies ; but the 
 rules as to parties to suits in equity were not the 
 same as those which governed courts of common 
 law, and were long since adapted to meet the
 
 46 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 difficulties presented by a multiplicity of persons 
 interested in the subject - matter of litigation. 
 Some of such persons were allowed to sue and be 
 sued on behalf of themselves and all other persons 
 having the same interest. This was done avowedly 
 to prevent failure of justice (see Meux v. Maltby, 
 2 Swanston 277, and the observations of Sir George 
 Jessell, M.R., 3 Ch. Div. 615). The principle on 
 which the rule is based forbids its restriction to 
 cases for which an exact precedent can be found in 
 the reports. The principle is as applicable to new 
 cases as to old, and ought to be applied to the 
 exigencies of modern life as occasion requires. 
 The rule itself has been embodied and made 
 applicable to the various divisions of the High 
 Court by the Judicature Act of 1873, and by 
 Order 16, Rule 9 ; and the unfortunate observa- 
 tions made on that rule in Temperton v. Russell, 
 1873 (1 Q. B. 435), have been happily corrected 
 in this House in the case of the Duke of Bedford 
 V. Ellis, and in the course of the argument in 
 the present case. I have myself no doubt what- 
 ever that if the Trade Union could not be sued 
 in this case in its registered name, some of its 
 members, namely, its Executive Committee, could 
 be sued on behalf of themselves and other members 
 of the society, and an injunction and judgment 
 for damages could be obtained in a proper case 
 in an action so framed. Further, it is, in my 
 opinion, equally plain that if the trustees in whom 
 the property of the society is legally vested were
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 47 
 
 added as parties an order could ho made in the 
 same action for the payment by them out of the 
 funds of the society of all damages and costs for 
 which the plaintiff might obtain judgment against 
 the Trade Union. I entirely repudiate the notion 
 that the effect of the Trade Union Act of 1871 is 
 to leojalise Trade Unions and confer on them rio-hts 
 to acquire and hold property, and at the same time 
 to protect the Union from legal proceedings if their 
 managers or agents acting for the wliole body 
 violate the rights of other people. For such 
 violation the property of a Trade Union can un- 
 questionably, in my opinion, be reached by legal 
 proceedings properly framed. The Court of Appeal 
 has not denied this, but it has held that the Trade 
 Union cannot be sued in its registered name, and 
 in strictness the only question for determination 
 by your lordships now is whether the Court of 
 Appeal was right in holding that the name of the 
 Trade Union ought to be struck out of the writ, 
 and that the injunction granted against the Trade 
 Union in that name ought to be discharged. If I 
 am right in what I have already said, this question 
 is of comparatively small importance. It is not a 
 question of substance, but of mere form, and turns 
 on the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and on the 
 Amending Act of 1876. The Act does not in 
 express terms say what use is to be made of the 
 name under which the Trade Union is registered 
 and by which it is known, but a Trade Union 
 which is registered under the Act must have a
 
 48 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 name (sections IG and 14 and schedule 1). It may 
 acquire property, but not being incorporated re- 
 course is had to the old well-known machinery of 
 trustees for acquiring and holding such property, 
 and for suing and being sued in respect of it. 
 Sections 7, 8, and 9 show this. The property so 
 held, however, is the property of the union. The 
 union is the beneficial owner. Section 12 provides 
 summary remedies for misapplications of Trade 
 Unions' property, and there is nothing here to 
 oust the jurisdiction of the superior courts ; and 
 there being nothing in the Act to prevent it, I 
 cannot conceive why an action in the name of the 
 Trade Union against its trustees to restrain a breach 
 of trust, or to make them account for a breach of 
 trust already committed, should be held unmain- 
 tainable or wrong in point of form. Further, 
 sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1871 and 
 section 16 of the Act of 1876 impose duties on 
 registered Trade Unions and penalties on them 
 (and not only on their officials) for breach of those 
 duties. The mode of enforcing these penalties is 
 pointed out in section 19 of the Act of 1871, but 
 there is nothing there to show that the Trade 
 Union on which the duty is cast, and which has 
 to pay the penalty, could not be proceeded against 
 in its registered name. Again, I apprehend that 
 a mandamus could go against a Trade Union to 
 compel it to perform the duties cast upon it by 
 statute ; and here, again, the obvious course would 
 be to proceed against the Union by its registered
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 49 
 
 name, unless there is something in the statute to 
 prevent it. My lords, a careful study of the Act 
 leads me to the conclusion that the Court of 
 Appeal held, and rightly held, that Trade Unions 
 are not corporations ; but the Court held, further, 
 that not being corporations, power to sue and be 
 sued in their registered name must be conferred 
 upon them, and that the language of the statutes 
 was not sufficient for the purpose. Upon this last 
 point I differ from them. The Act appears to me to 
 indicate with sufficient clearness that the registered 
 name is one which may be used to denote the 
 Union as an unincorporated society in legal pro- 
 ceedings, as well as for business and other purposes. 
 Tlie use of the name in legal proceedings imposes no 
 duties and alters no rights ; it is only a more con- 
 venient mode of proceeding than that which would 
 have to be adopted if the name could not be used. 
 1 do not say that the use of the name is compulsory, 
 l)ut it is at least permissive. Your lordships have 
 not now to consider how a judgment or order against 
 a Trade Union in its re£^istered name can be enforced. 
 I see no difficulty about this, but to avoid miscon- 
 ception I will add that, if a judgment or order in 
 that form is for the payment of money, it can, in my 
 opinion, only be enforced against the property of a 
 Trade Union, and that to reach such property it may 
 1)C found necessary to sue the trustees. I am of 
 opinion that the orders of Mr. Justice Farwell were 
 right, and should be restored." 
 
 The judgment of the Court of Appeal was accord- 
 4
 
 50 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 ingly reversed, and that of Mr. Justice Farwell 
 restored, the respondents being ordered to pay costs, 
 both here and in the Court below. 
 
 This decision caused immense consternation, for 
 it had put the Trade Unions in a worse position 
 than they were after passing the 1871 Act and 
 before the passing of the 1875 and 1876 Acts. 
 They had therefore to consider one of three courses 
 open to them : 
 
 (a) Accept the judgment ; 
 
 (h) Endeavour to promote legislation to give the 
 Unions the status they had hitherto been 
 supposed to enjoy under the Acts of 1871 
 and 1876 ; or 
 
 (c) Endeavour to promote legislation conferring 
 upon the Unions in clear and express 
 terms some of the capacities of a 
 corporation. 
 
 The question was then taken up by the Parlia- 
 mentary Committee, and brought by them before the 
 Trades Union Congress at Swansea in September 
 1901. There was a great discussion upon it, and the 
 Congress referred the matter to the Parliamentary 
 Committee to deal with. During the same week as 
 the Congress was sitting, however, the Taff Vale 
 Railway Company had claimed as damages against 
 the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants the
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 51 
 
 enormous sum of £20,000. Pending the trial of that 
 action nothing much was done by the Parliamentary 
 Committee. They desired to see the full results 
 before considering the policy necessary to pursue. 
 Individual leaders were addressing meetings through- 
 out the country, and advocating the sending of 
 Labour men to Parliament. But not so, however, 
 with many of the various opposing Press. Whether 
 it was the object of the Press to prejudice the minds 
 of everybody against the Trade Unions or not, must 
 be left to the opinions of the readers ; but the writer 
 believes it was, and a few extracts from some of the 
 interested journals during the months of September 
 to November 1901, quoted here, will convince others 
 also : 
 
 The >S'^. James' Budget, under the heading of 
 "Colossal Humbugs," rejoiced over the "Charter of 
 Freedom," and said that "Trade Unions were 
 engines of tyranny, to carry out the work of hamper- 
 ing the trade of the country," and called the Trade 
 Union officials " brazen-lunged, handsomely paid, and 
 arrogant windbags." 
 
 Herapatlis Journal said : " Trade Unions do 
 not stand where they did. . . . These trade com- 
 ])inations have done much to drive business to our 
 competitors across the Atlantic and on the Con- 
 tinent. Here a man works for what he is permitted 
 to do by a ring of agitators behind him."
 
 52 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 Commenting upon the discussion which took place 
 at a meeting held in London on 22nd September 
 1901, Gas and Water said: "It was unanimously 
 resolved that the only course to take was to send 
 100 Labour members to Parliament at the next 
 General Election. Inasmuch as the last General 
 Election (1900) was most disastrous for candidates 
 of this brand, it is difficult to see the hopefulness of 
 this suggestion." 
 
 Coal and Iron said : " The w^orking classes, by 
 their numbers, have all the political and legislative 
 power ; when it comes to using it, the common sense 
 and moderation which happily underlie the English 
 character make themselves evident ; for few, indeed, 
 are the firebrands sent to Parliament by the votes 
 either of working men or anybody else. In their 
 hearts they prefer solid people." 
 
 Fairplay said : " It seems, however, that some- 
 thing more is needed than money to secure seats in 
 representative assemblies. To wit, votes ; which 
 are not, so far as we know, purchasable in this 
 country, and which are not exclusively possessed by 
 horny-handed ones — not all of whom, moreover, 
 are members of Trade Unions or enamoured of 
 Labourism." 
 
 I must not conclude these quotations without 
 giving one from an address delivered to the "Junior 
 Engineers" on 1st November 1901 by Sir John
 
 / 
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 53 
 
 Jackson, and which lost him his election at Devon - 
 port in the bye-election in 1 905. Sir John said 
 that " The Unions in England so restricted and 
 held back the energy of the best of its workmen that 
 they emigrated to the States. Too many of the 
 Trade Unions have made themselves instruments of 
 pressure and persecution. . . . The ambition of the 
 disciple of the present-day Trade Unionism ... is 
 to contrive how he can get the most money for the 
 least work possible, and that their object is to allow 
 no working man to get his living except upon their 
 terms and with their high permission." 
 
 These are typical of the writings and sayings of 
 many journals and persons whose antipathy, if not 
 hostility, towards Trade Unions was well known. 
 
 The action for damages against the Railway 
 Servants' Society was heard in December before the 
 late Mr. Justice Wills and a special jury, when a 
 verdict in favour of the Taff Vale Railway Company 
 was declared. 
 
 Here the Society was faced with £20,000 damages 
 and costs, which was afterwards settled between the 
 solicitors of both sides by a payment of £23,000 to 
 cover all on the company's side. 
 
 Momentous as the House of Lords' decision was, 
 this appeared to be more so. The ordinary members 
 of Trade Unions were better able to appreciate the 
 far-reaching effect of this upon their Unions than
 
 54 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 tliey were able to understand of the legal techni- 
 calities of the judgment of the Law Lords. From 
 this time onward there was no difficulty in 
 awakeninof the Trade Unionists to their sense of 
 responsibility and to action with a view to getting 
 some legislative redress. 
 
 The first move was, the Parliamentary Committee 
 arranged a meeting of Labour and other members 
 of Parliament in one of the Committee-Ptooms of 
 the House of Commons on 5th February 1902. 
 They also had the assistance, opinion, and advice of 
 such eminent Counsel as the present Lord Chancellor, 
 then Sir Robert Reid, K.C.; the present Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, Mr. Asquith, K.C.; the present 
 War Minister, Mr. Haldane, K.C.; the present 
 Solicitor-General, Sir W. Robson, K.C.; Mr. Atherly 
 Jones, K.C.; Sir C. Dilke, Mr. McKenna, and others. 
 This was followed by the Parliamentary Committee 
 having an interview with the late Lord Ritchie, 
 then Home Secretary, and accompanied by Lord 
 James of Hereford. 
 
 The case of the Trade Unions was very forcibly 
 put before these gentlemen by the Committee and 
 Sir Charles Dilke, who accompanied them. Mr. 
 Ritchie, however, was very guarded in his reply, and 
 went no farther than to say he would give it 
 careful consideration. The Parliamentary Committee 
 were not content with this, but communicated with
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 55 
 
 a large number of members of Parliament, asking 
 them to ballot for a place for a motion to discuss 
 the question, when over fifty promised to do so. 
 At this time the writer was the only member of 
 the Parliamentary Committee who had a seat in 
 Parliament, and he acted for the Committee by 
 taking charge of their work in the House. 
 
 A large number of members balloted, and it fell 
 to the lot of, then, Mr. Beaumont, M.P. for Hex- 
 ham division. On 14th May the motion discussed 
 was as follows : " That legislation is necessary to 
 prevent workmen being placed by judge-made law 
 in a position inferior to that intended by Parliament 
 in 1875." 
 
 The Government refused to accept the motion, 
 and it was defeated by 29 votes only. Immediately 
 afterwards the Parliamentary Committee prepared 
 a Bill to deal with the question, which was introduced 
 by the writer, but got no forther this Session. 
 
 The Committee after this became active in interro- 
 gating members of Parliament and inviting them 
 to ballot for their Bill in the new Session, and 
 repeated their work with increased vigour each 
 year to the end. In 1903 their Bill got through 
 second reading stage, but was defeated by 30 votes. 
 In 1904 it passed the second reading stage by 
 39 majority. In 1905 it passed second reading by 
 122 majority, and got to the Grand Committee on
 
 5G TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 Law, where, after several days' discussion over a 
 great imml)cr of destructive amendments, which 
 were defeated, finally one of these got carried. 
 The Labour members on the Committee, in con- 
 junction with their Liberal supporters, had a con- 
 sultation with the Parliamentary Committee, when 
 it was decided to take no further part with the 
 measure owing to the following amendment having 
 been carried, which destroyed the main object of the 
 Bill, namely, to add at the end of the first clause : 
 " Provided that no person shall, after })eing requested 
 by any person annoyed by his conduct, or by any 
 constable instructed by such person, to move away, 
 to act as wilfully to obstruct, insult, or annoy such 
 person." 
 
 By this time the Trade Unionists in the country 
 had become irritated and annoyed at the insincerity 
 of the majority of the members of Parliament, and 
 the Government and many of the Ministers became 
 aware of it. The Prime Minister therefore 
 appointed a Eoyal Commission to inquire into the 
 many various and complicated findings of the 
 Courts, with a view of leofislation beino- introduced. 
 This, however, had been left too long ; the dis- 
 solution took place in January 1906, and the 
 Conservative Government were badly beaten, the 
 Trade Unionists playing a most vigorous and 
 active part in the General Election. Not only were
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 57 
 
 the Liljerals retuniecl by an cnoniious majority, 
 hut Trade Unions and SociaUst representatives were 
 elected in Lirge numbers. The fourteen Labour 
 members in tlie House before the election were 
 supplemented by thirty-eight more. 
 
 This enormous success of Labour at the polls 
 no doubt created an impression upon an already 
 sympathetic party and Government ; indeed, it 
 might be quite correctly said that a large number 
 of the Government's supporters were more extreme 
 upon this one question than some of the Labour 
 men were. The result was that the Government 
 introduced a Bill, as also did the Labour members 
 introduce the Parliamentary Committee's Bill. The 
 Government's measure was much weaker than the 
 Labour measure, but the Government, to their 
 credit, left the House free to choose whicli of the 
 two Bills they preferred. The House unmistakably 
 chose the Labour Bill, and the Government in 
 Committee amended their Bill so as to include 
 the principles contained in the Labour Bill, which, 
 after a good deal of amending, was made perfect, 
 passed both Houses of Parliament, and came into 
 operation on the first day of this year. 
 
 The history of the agitation and demonstrations 
 carried on by the Parliamentary Committee and the 
 Trade Unionists in the House of Commons and 
 the country from 1900 to the end of 190G
 
 58 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 would read very much like the history of the earlier 
 efforts before the Acts of 1871 and 1876. The 
 arguments against the Bill were precisely the same ; 
 the predictions of what would happen in future 
 if the Bill became law were identical with those 
 used in the old days of the Combination Laws. 
 Even the ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, re- 
 ferred to it as the most outrageous Bill ever 
 attempted to be placed upon the Statute Book ; 
 and many others described it in similar terms, 
 yet they passed it. 
 
 It was clear, therefore, that the great influx 
 of Labour members into Parliament, together with 
 the keen agitation in the country, had effected a 
 material change in the attitude of the House of 
 Lords towards the demands of the Trade Unionists. 
 
 To o-ive the account of all the numerous details 
 of all that happened, and of the movements of the 
 Parliamentary Committee during the six years 
 referred to, is not possible in this small volume. 
 And, for the purpose of the main object, brief 
 references to the main principles and actions are 
 sufficient, the main point being to discuss the 
 objects and policy of the Labour movement from 
 the Trade Union standpoint. 
 
 Trade Unions in this country have done an 
 enormous amount of o'ood for the toilinsj masses. 
 Were it not for their existence no one can tell
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 59 
 
 or even imagine what the conditions of the people 
 would be. John Stuart Mill held that in the 
 labour market, in fighting for a share of that un- 
 determined range of price, the employer possessed 
 so great an advantage by having the initiative in 
 naming the price, that nothing but a strong com- 
 bination of workmen could give the workers even 
 a chance of successfully holding their own against 
 the employers. 
 
 Here is the crux of the whole situation. In 
 the keen competition, employers would not think 
 of the wages of their workpeople, but in their 
 anxiety to secure orders and profits by under- 
 cutting prices, wages would be fixed lower and 
 lower on each occasion, and would be reduced 
 accordingly, until they were below a rate upon 
 which people would be able to exist. Trade Unions 
 liave prevented this where the workers have taken 
 advantao;e of them. Standard rates of wanes and 
 hours have been and are fixed in all well-organised 
 trades. This is as good to the employers as it 
 is to workmen. The employers, when competing, 
 are able to calculate the exact costs of production, 
 and knowing they cannot reduce the workmen's 
 wages or increase their hours, they fix the prices 
 accordingly. As the Trade Unions fix standards 
 of hours and wages as maximums and minimums, 
 so the employers are compelled to fix prices, below
 
 60 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 which they cannot sell or manufacture at a profit. 
 The Trade Unions have created an instinct in 
 employers to recognise this, which could not have 
 been done did they not exist. 
 
 To secure this position many a hard battle has 
 had to be fought, and great privation and suffering 
 endured. But all of it has been more than justified. 
 A comparison of the standard of life at the present 
 time and half a century ago is sufficient to prove 
 this. It cannot be any longer a theory, but it has 
 become a real hard fact, that Trade Unions regulate 
 price, especially in regard to minimum standards. It 
 is too absurd to think that in these days individual 
 workmen would be able to secure the wage, hours, 
 and general conditions they now enjoy. Examples 
 to prove this may be found even at the present 
 time in those industries in which the w^orkers are 
 not organised. There will be found that the general 
 conditions are far below the standard in the 
 industries where the workers are well organised. 
 It has been stated times out of number by ardent 
 opponents of Trade Unions, that they have been 
 the means of " driving our trade out of the country " 
 and " ruining industries," but in spite of it all, our 
 industrial system is greater than ever, and still 
 growing, and may it continue to grow. It may be 
 paradoxical, but there are a greater number em- 
 ployed and a larger number unemployed now than
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 61 
 
 at any other period ; and whilst there arc thousands 
 who are over-worked and underpaid in industries 
 where the workpeople are unorganised, yet the 
 majority of our workpeople who are employed enjoy 
 better conditions than ever. Our towns and cities 
 are improving, houses of the working classes are 
 improving, and the general appearance of the 
 British workman and his family is of the most 
 respectable and happy. In this observation I 
 allude of course to those in good employment. 
 I am quite convinced such conditions would not 
 be so were it not for the great work of the 
 Trade Unions. I am equally convinced that the 
 conditions will continue to improve. It is slow 
 work ; evolution is generally not very rapid, but it 
 is permanent. It establishes things on an improved 
 basis as it proceeds, the results always being of 
 a more satisffictory character than the results of 
 revolution. 
 
 Our modern industrial system, with its large 
 corporations and almost total absence of that 
 friendly relationship between employer and em- 
 jDloyed, with its subdivision of labour, which is 
 tending so much to destroy craftsmanship and 
 largely becoming monotonous, and of making skilloil 
 workmen mere automatic machine - minders, — this, 
 with generally bad conditions of overwork and 
 underpay, is likely to degenerate the working
 
 62 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 classes, and to prevent this the Trade Unions 
 have done much, and will do more. 
 
 It is the introduction of machinery and the 
 subdivision of labour that is largely responsible for 
 the existing unemployment, especially in the un- 
 skilled and unorganised industries. It is the 
 unskilled and unorganised workmen whom we find 
 mostly unemployed or only partly employed, gener- 
 ally overworked when employed, living in slums, 
 insufficiently fed and clothed, and living generally 
 under bad conditions. This has a strong tendency 
 to drag down those who are fortunately better 
 situated, and it is only by the powerful force of 
 their Trade Unions they are enabled to resist such 
 tendency. The main object of Trade Unionism is 
 to lift up the men into a better condition of things ; 
 they therefore try to lift up those below, so as to 
 more easily ensure the safety of their own con- 
 ditions. 
 
 It is frequently contended that Trade Unions, 
 by fixing a standard of hours and a minimum wage, 
 prevent men being paid according to their merit, 
 and thus establish a dead level for the superior 
 and the inferior workmen, and therefore prevent 
 the cultivation of individual efficiency and interest. 
 This has always been and always will be denied 
 by all Trade Unionists. 
 
 Such an instance can never be quoted. Trade
 
 TRADE UXIONISxM 63 
 
 Unions have never suggested such a ridiculous 
 proposition. They have never told employers that 
 they may or shall not pay any maximum. What 
 they have done and do, and rightly so, is to fix a 
 minimum below which they shall not pay. If, 
 therefore, a workman is not deserving of more, he 
 need not be paid, but if another workman proves 
 more efficient and industrious the employers are 
 not prevented from paying him a few shillings j^er 
 week more. If the employers are so anxious to do 
 this and to encourage the skill and industry of 
 workmen as the opponents of Ti-ade Unions seem 
 to indicate, it is very strange that those employers 
 who seem so fortunate as to be free from the 
 "interference" and "tyranny" of Trade Unions, 
 and enjoy to the fullest extent the doubtful pleasure 
 of "free" labour, have not shown an example of 
 some ideal conditions of hours and wao-es in their 
 particular establishments. Instead of the conditions 
 being better, they are invariably worse than where 
 the Trade Unions dominate. The ftict is that the 
 average employers, whether they employ " Union " 
 or " free " labour, simply look to the profit and loss 
 account, and, with a very few honourable exceptions, 
 take no interest or pains to know their individual 
 workmen or their qualification, and therefore have 
 neither the knowledo;e nor will to reward them 
 accordino; to their individual merits.
 
 64 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 The majority of workmen are outside of Trade 
 Unions, and the employers of those have been and 
 are, therefore, free and at full liberty to treat with 
 their workmen individually and upon their merits. 
 Yet the feeling is no better — it may truly be said 
 to be worse, with few exceptions — between the 
 employers and workmen in those industries. There 
 is no more rewarding for individual ability by those 
 employers who are unrestrained by the "tyranny" 
 of the Trade Unions than in those trades where the 
 voice of the organised workmen is loudest and their 
 power strongest. In reality things are generally 
 far worse, for the men being unorganised, are unable 
 to resist the worse conditions, and are obliged to put 
 up with them. 
 
 Even these are not so bad or so low as they 
 would be were Trade Unions not in existence and 
 always showing up such evil conditions. 
 
 To prove this it is only necessary to compare 
 the conditions of men employed in the engineering 
 trades in the North, where every man is in the 
 Union, with the conditions of men in the same 
 trades in many of the large works in South Wales, 
 for instance, where none of the men, or at any 
 rate very few, are in the Union. Here will be found 
 as much as ten and twelve shillings per week 
 more being paid in the North to the Union men 
 than in South Wales to the non-Uniou men.
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 65 
 
 Other conditions also are proportionately better. 
 The full results are not found in the wages only. 
 The skill, physique, intelligence, and independence of 
 the men in the North are equally superior, as the 
 wages and other conditions are to the non-Union men 
 in South Wales. In their homes and surroundings 
 will be found a vast difference. Better class of 
 liouses, and more improvements in the sanitary con- 
 ditions of their surroundings. This is conducive to 
 the general welfare of the locality, and ultimately the 
 nation. In our Trade Unions there is formed an 
 association of men joined for mutual benefits, and 
 they agitate for such reforms as they find necessary 
 both inside and outside the workshop. With the 
 uon-Uniouists, they are simply machines : get up in 
 the morning and go to their work, day after day, 
 simply as a routine thing, work as long as required 
 of them by their employers, accept what wages the 
 employers choose to give them, return home to mope 
 over their unsatisfactory conditions, with no energy 
 or heart to take part in any public affairs, local or 
 otherwise. They dare not complain of their con- 
 ditions, or they will be sent about their business. 
 
 If there ever was a grain of truth in the state- 
 ments that the interference of Trade Unions injured 
 our trade and industries, and prevented employers 
 paying men upon their individual merits, liere we 
 have excellent proof to the contrary. Our industries 
 5
 
 GG TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 in the North are most flourishing, whilst the men 
 are paid from 30 to 50 per cent, more wages. Trade 
 Unions produce greater efficiency in the w^orkmen. 
 They demand fair wages, reasonable hours, and in 
 return give a fair amount of efficient labour. This 
 efficiency is the production of our supremacy in all 
 our skilled trades, unequalled in the world, and all 
 is due to the work of the Trade Unions of this 
 country. 
 
 What makes efficiency in workmen, is good 
 wages to enable them to have proper nourishment, 
 reasonable time for rest, and recreation to make them 
 physically fit, and time for thought to make them 
 mentally fit. 
 
 Good wages and short hours are also conducive 
 to increased trade and employment. The Union 
 men of the North, with their ten to fifteen shillings 
 per week more than the same class of men in South 
 Wales, have much greater demands for food, clothing, 
 boots, furniture, and other things necessary for com- 
 fort and pleasure. This must mean employment 
 for many people in the various industries to produce 
 the things required, and so in turn the various centres 
 producing these extra requirements, as well as the 
 nation, is richer both in money and better class of 
 citizens. 
 
 Our Trade Unions have benefited industry as 
 well as the workmen. The very essence of character
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 67 
 
 and morality in conduct is tlie restraint of immediate 
 impulses for the sake of eventual advantage. It 
 demands a money sacrifice and a certain amount of 
 discipline. Without these Trade Unionism could 
 not exist. The more developed it becomes, the more 
 highly ordered it becomes. Thus it raises the 
 general standard of the workman. The inferior class, 
 both as men and workmen, are elevated when they 
 join the Union, elevated in standard of conduct and 
 intelligence. It makes men take interest in some 
 things other than simply beer and betting. It is 
 the Trade Unions that are responsible for the 
 gradual disappearance of the old idea that labour 
 stands in the same category as raw material and 
 machinery. The more they are able to raise the 
 standard of labour, the more it raises the standard 
 of living and the general character. 
 
 Our Trade Unions have rendered great service in 
 establishing good and stable relationships between 
 employers and workmen. This has been, and is, an 
 enormous advantage in the keen competition with 
 other countries. This, perhaps, has not been brought 
 about through sentiment or artificial arrangement, 
 but grown up as a part of the organic system forced 
 by the circumstances of the increasing power of 
 combinations. The growth and consolidation of 
 trade combinations amongst workmen forced em- 
 ployers to organise also, and from these two powerful
 
 68 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 organised forces a new order of things has been 
 brought about. Instead of fighting and quarrelling 
 over every subject of difference between them, they 
 developed consultations and deliberations, mutual 
 understanding and respect instead of ill-feeling and 
 antagonism, and with these arrangements were made 
 for providing machinery for regulating differences 
 accordina; to chans^ing circumstances and conditions. 
 Even these are by no means yet perfect, but 
 they will improve as time goes on, and they only 
 exist where men are highly organised. The most 
 completely organised workmen are those employed 
 in the mining, cotton, iron, and engineering indus- 
 tries. The result is, few strikes or lock-outs take 
 place, and standard basis of wages and other con- 
 ditions exist, regulated by joint boards, conciliation 
 boards, and frequently between the officials of 
 employers' and workmen's organisations. To be 
 most effective, strong organisations are essentially 
 necessary — the stronger the better. Where the 
 organisation of workmen is weakest, there it is 
 most likely that these arrangements break down. 
 The crisis in the cotton trade about two years ago, 
 and also in the coal trade about the same period, 
 was successfully passed through owing to the em- 
 ployers' and workmen's organisations being able to 
 adjust their grievances by negotiations, whereas if 
 the men had been less organised, the probability
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 69 
 
 is that they would have been engaged in a long 
 and bitter struggle. The services thus rendered 
 to industry cannot be estimated. Without highly 
 organised and disciplined unions this could not be 
 possible. The more highly organised also, the better 
 the discipline. In this respect there has been a 
 great improvement during recent years. It is one 
 of the greatest of the difficulties of the leaders, 
 but they are conscientiously teaching their members 
 the value of discipline. The great responsibilities 
 resting upon their shoulders make it imperative 
 they should do so. Nearly all the leaders of the 
 larger Unions in particular are men of ability, and 
 possess more knowledge, insight, and judgment than 
 the rank and file can have, for want of opportunities 
 to accomplish ; they also understand l^etter the need 
 and value of moderation and compromise. To 
 acquire these qualities is essential, and a leader who 
 could not do so would be unfitted to be at the 
 head of our great Trade Unions. 
 
 The Trade Union leaders, however, are amongst 
 the most abused people of any. If any agitation 
 is proceeding, employers and public put it down 
 to the leaders wantonly fomenting disputes and 
 strikes for their own ends, and to get themselves 
 recognised. It is a very long time ago, if ever 
 there were such instances. At any rate, there is 
 absolutely no ground for such a proposition now.
 
 70 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 As the Trade Unions develop and mature, the task 
 of the leaders is more in preventing than fomenting 
 of disputes. Their difficulties are not in stirring 
 men up, but in keeping them quiet. The task 
 is not an easy one, and demands no common 
 qualities. A Trade Union leader frequently finds 
 himself between the "devil and the deep sea"; 
 he requires a cool head, clear eye, and a firm foot. 
 He must satisfy an exacting, suspicious, and often 
 insubordinate section of men. He must reconcile 
 impossible aspirations with solid facts. He must 
 be conciliatory with employers, whilst firmly main- 
 taining the interests of his members. He must 
 keep a keen eye on public opinion, and be alive 
 to the state of trade and the labour market. And 
 all the time he is liable to have the ground cut 
 from beneath him by jealousy and intrigue. He 
 is hardly ever free from trouble within, arising 
 chiefly from jealousy, intrigue, and ingratitude, 
 — always some small sections of the members, 
 naturally suspicious, coming to conclusions without 
 knowing or understanding the facts and circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The position of a Trade Union leader is just 
 the reverse to what it is popularly supposed to be, 
 namely, having an easy time, drawing a large salary, 
 and nothing to do but going about making speeches 
 and fomenting strikes.
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 71 
 
 If many of the Trade Union leaders were to 
 put in half the efforts and energy for private em- 
 ployers, they would invariably be paid double and 
 treble their present salaries. In spite of all these 
 difficulties within and without, these men go on 
 with their work, loyally and faithfully serving their 
 members and benefiting the community. Conscious 
 of their responsibilities, and conscientious in all 
 their doings, they invariably receive the confidence, 
 support, and admiration of the majority and more 
 staid of their members. It is generally with the 
 younger and inexperienced members the greatest 
 difficulties arise. These invariably think they know 
 better than the older and most experienced, and 
 are generally in more of a hurry to accomplish 
 great things. 
 
 These few illustrations are sufficient to indicate 
 if not to prove that the existence of Trade Unions 
 are beneficial to the community in general. 
 Without them the grievances of workmen would 
 be greater and their passions quite unrestrained, 
 and the result would be that there would never 
 be complete freedom from strife and strikes. 
 
 Happily, strikes are becoming less frequent 
 each year, and while the employers in the best- 
 organised trades and best - regulated industries 
 have recognised the Unions, there are many who, 
 unfortunately, have not had the wisdom to do
 
 72 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 so. It is in these trades that the majority of 
 strikes occur. The greatest number of strikes 
 of the present day are not so much on questions 
 of wages or hours, as to the objections of employers 
 to negotiate with the men's agents. Why any 
 employers should take up this attitude no one 
 can explain, nor can those employers themselves 
 explain, or at any rate, they will not explain. The 
 only conceivable reason is that they can take 
 greater advantage of their workpeople, and obtain 
 their labour cheaper and under less favourable 
 conditions to the workmen than they otherwise 
 would by dealing with the men's agents. If this 
 is so, then it is an unfair method, and they are 
 depriving their workpeople of those rights they 
 are justly entitled to. It is not conceivable to 
 the ordinary mind why the shareholders of any 
 industry should claim their right to employ whom 
 they like as their manager or agent, and at the 
 same time deny the same right to their work- 
 people to employ whom they may choose as their 
 agent. The manager looks after the interests of 
 the proprietors, endeavours to obtain the maximum 
 of production for the minimum of cost. In 
 his purchases is included the labour of the 
 workmen, and that he desires to obtain as cheaply 
 as possible. Cheapness is not always best. Shoddy 
 goods can be bought cheaply, but they are generally
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 73 
 
 not of a lasting kind, and frequently prove the 
 dearest in the long-run. Labour can be placed 
 in the same category. The highest skilled and 
 best paid is generally the most profitable to the 
 employers. Some employers think that it is easy 
 'to do the reverse to this, — that if they do not 
 recognise the men's Union they need not give 
 such good conditions and so high wages as they 
 would have to do if they did deal with them ; 
 and that they can make the men " speed up " 
 to the maximum. To do this they have to maintain 
 a multitude of officials to watch every movement 
 of their workmen. They may think this is 
 economy. It may be, but it is false economy. 
 If the money spent on superfluous officials was 
 spent upon the workmen, to encourage their 
 confidence and interest by fair conditions and 
 generous recognition, they would find it far more 
 profitable. AVhile the men are allowed to think 
 that their employers refuse to negotiate with their 
 chosen representatives they become suspicious that 
 they are being deprived of some portion of their 
 just rights. Then their interest and confidence 
 is weakened, and a feeling of resentment is bred 
 in the men's minds. After all, if employers are 
 straightforward and anxious to give the best 
 conditions they can aflbrd, and have no desire to 
 withhold anything from their workmen that they
 
 74 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 are justly entitled to, why refuse to deal with 
 their chosen representatives, and cause unnecessary 
 prejudice and bad feeling between the workmen 
 and the management? The non-recocrnition of 
 Trade Union leaders, where it exists, is getting 
 antiquated, and sooner or later will have to be 
 broken down. Then it had better be broken down 
 in friendly and good feeling than by having to 
 use force, which is the root and basis of bad 
 feeling. 
 
 It may be interesting at this stage to record the 
 opinions of a few w^ell- known men representing 
 various classes of industries upon the usefulness of 
 Trade Unions. During a discussion in the House 
 of Commons on the Trade Union position in 1903, 
 Sir Charles Renshaw, then M.P. for Kenfrewshire, 
 said : " We recognise the improvements which 
 have been effected on the position of the status 
 of workmen by the operation of Trade Unions, not 
 only in regard to the members of those Unions, 
 but in respect to the men outside of them 
 also." 
 
 In the same debate, Mr. Wolff of Belfast said : 
 " I know the good work which they (the Unions) 
 have done. If it had not been for them the hours of 
 work would be longer and the wages much lower 
 than they are now." The most strongly expressed 
 opinion, perhaps, is that of Mr. F. Mills, J. P.,
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 75 
 
 General Manager of the Ebbw Vale Coal, Steel, and 
 Iron Company, who, upon the occasion of taking the 
 chair at a meeting organised by the Steel Smelters' 
 Union in 1906, said : "Trade Unionists were better 
 workmen and more respectable than non-Union 
 men." 
 
 Railway Companies are amongst the greatest 
 objectors to recognise the representatives of the 
 men's Trade Union. It is therefore interesting 
 to note what Sir George Gibb, one of our ablest 
 railway managers, has had to say upon this 
 subject. In an interview with a Labour Com- 
 missioner on behalf of the Government of the 
 United States of America who was over here 
 collecting information in regard to the relations 
 between employers and workmen and the general 
 operations of our Trade Unions in 1904, Sir 
 George Gibb, who was then General Manager of 
 the North-Eastern Railway, said : 
 
 "It is a fact to be recognised, that the Trade 
 Unions have been to a very large degree the means 
 of obtaining for their members higher wages ; and 
 while an unwise Labour leader might be the moans 
 of working untold mischief, just as an unwise 
 manager or employer of labour might do an equ;d 
 amount of harm, the right of the men to combine 
 and form themselves into Unions must be admitted 
 and accepted." Sir George Gibb " has always been
 
 7C> TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 in favour of employers frankly recognising the 
 Unions, because he considers it just that the men 
 should have the advantage in their ne2:otiations with 
 an employer of being represented by a skilled agent, 
 exactly as the employer is ; and the men can obtain 
 the benefit of this skill and knowledge only by means 
 of the Union." 
 
 One more opinion, this time not from a repre- 
 sentative of either labour or employers, but one of 
 the Judges of our High Courts. In 1906, Lord 
 Justice Vaughan Williams, addressing a large 
 assembly in the Rhondda Valley, and dealing with 
 Trade Societies, said: "He was a hearty believer 
 in their (Trade Unions) usefulness, and always had 
 been. He did not believe that Trade Unions made 
 it more difficult to compete with foreign countries, 
 nor did he believe that successful competition was 
 possible for a country where labour could not 
 combine against capital. He believed in the 
 principle that a good bargain was one wdiich w^as 
 good to both parties to that bargain. The right 
 of the workmen to combine to raise wao-es and 
 improve the conditions of life ought to be conceded." 
 
 There are many other employers who have borne 
 equal testimony to the usefulness and value of Trade 
 Unions. Those whom I have quoted are men 
 eminently qualified to speak on the question, having 
 gained knowledge and experience of the operations
 
 TRADE UNIONISM n 
 
 of Trade Unions in connection with our various in- 
 dustries and on the Bench. 
 
 Employers who stubbornly refuse to concede the 
 point of negotiating with the officials of Trade 
 Unions are narrow-minded and certainly not far- 
 seeing. They will ultimately do far more injury to 
 themselves and industry than by adopting the more 
 conciliatory policy of recognition. While they think 
 they enjoy the privilege of being "free" from the 
 " interference " of the Unions, they are breeding the 
 greatest discontent, ill-feeling, and suspicion in the 
 minds of their workmen. Socialists find the most of 
 their material in the conduct of such short-sijrhted 
 policy, and use it with all their might. They have 
 introduced Socialism into the Trade Unions, and are 
 more or less succeeding in turning these Societies 
 into political organisations. Socialism was never the 
 object of Trade Unions, and it is very questionable 
 whether they can be used to propagate objects not 
 directly benefiting the members of the Unions as 
 such. Be that as it may, if they do develop far into 
 the regions of Socialism, the responsibility must 
 largely rest upon the shoulders of the employers who 
 have adopted the short-sighted policy of keeping 
 everybody at arm's length. They may think that 
 the Socialists will not get into power in their time. 
 It may not happen. But if the bitterness and 
 antagonism which Socialists breed and propagate
 
 78 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 against the " dividend-hunting capitalists " will get 
 "bottled up" to high-pressure point and explode, 
 then much harm may be done if they would not be 
 a power for good. The Socialist movement in this 
 country has not grown up much on its own merits. 
 While it was confined to Socialist organisations, its 
 progress was very slow, especially so during the 
 period Socialists were in antagonism to Trade Unions. 
 Socialists advocated capturing Parliament and all 
 public bodies ; Trade Unionists also advocated direct 
 representation in Parliament, largely owing to the 
 attitude of employers, as I have just mentioned. 
 Here Socialists and Trade Unionists had something 
 in common in the principle of direct Labour repre- 
 sentation, independent of orthodox political parties. 
 The Socialist object was not pressed to the front very 
 boldly at this stage, simply direct Labour representa- 
 tion. Each year this opinion grew stronger, until 
 1899, when at the Trades Union Congress held at 
 Plymouth, the following resolution, placed on the 
 Agenda by the Amalgamated Society of Railway 
 Servants, was discussed and carried : 
 
 " That this Congress, having regard to its decisions 
 in former years, and with a view" to securing a better 
 representation of the interests of Labour in the 
 House of Commons, hereby instructs the Parlia- 
 mentary Committee to invite the co-operation of all 
 Co-operative Societies, Socialistic and other Working-
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 79 
 
 Class Organisations, to jointly co-operate on lines 
 mutually agreed upon in convening a special Congress 
 of representatives from such of the above-named 
 organisations as may be willing to take part to 
 devise ways and means for securing the return of an 
 increased number of Labour members to the next 
 House of Commons." 
 
 There voted for the resolution 540,000, and 
 434,000 against. 
 
 The Parliamentary Committee carried out the 
 resolution, and in February 1900 the conference 
 was held in Farringdon Memorial Hall, London. 
 It was attended by 130 delegates, representing a 
 membership of 568,177, or a number slightly in 
 excess of that voting at the Congress in favour of 
 the A.S.R.S. resolution. The proceedings were on 
 the whole harmonious, and a basis for a constitution 
 was drawn up. Among those present were Mr, W. 
 C. Steadman, M.P., Mr. John Burns, M.P., :Mr. Keir 
 Hardie, M.P., Mr. J. R. Macdonald, M.P., Mr. Wilkie, 
 M.P., Mr. Bell, M.P., and other leaders of both 
 movements. The principal resolutions carried were 
 two. The first resolution moved was : " That this 
 conference is in favour of working-class opinion being 
 represented in the House of Commons by men sym- 
 pathetic with the aims and demands of the Labour 
 movement." To this Mr. George Barnes moved, 
 and Mr. John Burns, M.P., seconded, an amendment,
 
 80 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 which added to the resolution the following words at 
 the end : "and whose candidatures are promoted by 
 one or other of the organisations represented at this 
 conference." This was agreed to by 102 votes to 3. 
 Mr. Keir Hardie then moved, "That this conference 
 is in favour of establishing a distinct Labour group 
 in Parliament, who shall have their own Whips, and 
 agree upon a policy which must embrace a readiness 
 to co-operate with any party which for the time 
 being may be engaged in promoting legislation in 
 the direct interest of Labour, and be equally ready 
 to associate themselves with any party in opposing 
 measures having an opposite tendency ; and, further, 
 members of the Labour group shall not oppose any 
 candidate whose candidature is being promoted in 
 terms of resolution 1 ; " and agreed to unanimously. 
 The conference then proceeded to elect a Committee 
 and Secretary, and to establish some rules to 
 guide it. 
 
 In August of this year the strike on the TafF 
 Vale Eailway occurred, when an injunction against 
 the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was 
 applied for and obtained. 
 
 This came as a " bolt from the blue " to Trade 
 Unionists. The actions followed and were carried 
 to the House of Lords, whose decision was that 
 Trade Unions were liable for the actions of their 
 agents. Following this came the action by the
 
 TRADE UNIONISxM 81 
 
 TafF Vale Railway Company to recover damafres 
 from the Society, when the Court decided against 
 the latter, and damages and costs to the extent of 
 £23,000 had to be paid. 
 
 This gave an enormous filip to the newly 
 inaugurated Labour Representation movement, with- 
 out which it is doubtful to many if the same 
 progress would have been made. 
 
 At the first Conference three Socialist Societies 
 were represented along with the Trade Unions, but one, 
 the S.D.F., withdrew before the Second Conference. 
 
 The following shows the growth of this move- 
 ment since its formation in 1900 : 
 
 Ykar. 
 
 1900-1 
 1901-2 
 1902-3 
 1903-4 
 1904-5 
 1905-6 
 1906-7 
 
 Trade Unions. 
 
 Til A DE Coun- 
 cils AND 
 L.R.C.'s. 
 
 Socialist 
 Societies. 
 
 Total. 
 
 No. 
 
 Member- 
 sliip. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 Member- 
 ship. 
 
 41 
 55 
 127 
 165 
 158 
 158 
 174 
 
 353,070 
 455,450 
 847.315 
 956,025 
 885,270 
 904,496 
 974,509 
 
 7 
 21 
 49 
 76 
 73 
 73 
 83 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 22,861 
 13,861 
 13,835 
 13,775 
 14,730 
 16,784 
 20,885 
 
 375,931 
 469,311 
 861,150 
 969,800 
 900,000 
 921,280 
 997,665 
 
 It will be observed that the total membership 
 
 in the last year is about two-thirds of the member- 
 6
 
 82 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 ship of the Trades Union Congress, whilst it includes 
 the Socialist Societies. The " Labour Party," as 
 it is now called, is a composite body, the organised 
 Socialist Section only numbering 20,885, as against 
 the Trade Unionists 974,509 at the commencement 
 of January 1907. The Trade Unionists, therefore, 
 subscribe the bulk of the funds ; at the same time 
 the constitution allows three seats on the Executive 
 Committee to the Socialists, against nine to the 
 Trade Unionists, the majority of the latter also 
 being pronounced Socialists. The Socialists, however, 
 have more than their share of Candidates at the 
 elections, either bye or general elections, and they 
 have seven members in Parliament who receive 
 payment of £200 per year and 25 per cent, 
 of the returning officers' fees. Some of these are 
 not Trade Unionists, being either of the middle 
 class or amateur journalists. The formation of the 
 Labour Party, and of its compulsory maintenance 
 fund, has been a good thing for these Socialist 
 Organisations. The bargain from their standpoint 
 is no doubt a good one ; they largely dominate 
 the policy, whilst the Trade Unions provide the 
 funds. 
 
 Until the General Election in 1906 only four 
 of the fourteen Labour members in Parliament 
 were what were then known as L.R.C. members. 
 All Labour members acted together, however, on all
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 83 
 
 matters affecting labour, and no distinction could 
 be observed between them. Then ten others were 
 being; referred to as Liberal-Labour men, althouo-h 
 some were quite as independent of the Liberal 
 Party as the others, excepting that they worked in 
 harmony with, and not in antagonism to, the 
 Liberal Party. 
 
 Some time previous to, and in anticipation of 
 the General Election, the Parliamentary Committee 
 of the Trades Union Congress, which had all along 
 brought all the working-class representatives together 
 to meet them when they desired any question 
 discussed touching the interests of labour, called 
 together the Executives of the Labour Party and 
 the General Federation of Trades, to meet at the 
 Caxton Hall to consider a proposal for uniting all 
 sections in view of the General Election. Terms 
 were here arranged, and were known as the Caxton 
 Hall " Concordat," and were as follows : 
 
 " L That all candidates running under the auspices 
 of the Labour Representation Committee receive the 
 loyal and hearty support of all sections of the 
 Labour movement. 
 
 *' 2. That Labour and Trade Unionist candidates 
 approved of by the Parliamentary Committee of tlic 
 Trade Union Congress, receive the support of the 
 Labour Representation Committee, so far as its 
 constitution will permit, on the lines followed during
 
 84 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 the election for West Monmouthshire, when Mr. 
 Richards was returned. 
 
 " 3. That in no case do candidates run by either 
 of the organisations referred to oppose in any shape 
 or form the candidates run by the other. 
 
 "4. In constituencies where no Labour candidates 
 are running, the policy of abstention is in no sense 
 recommended to the local organisations." 
 
 These terms w^ere honourably carried out until 
 the General Election was over, and were, without a 
 doubt, in a large measure responsible for the return 
 of so many Labour men to the House of Commons. 
 One common unity amongst all leaders of Trade 
 Unions and Socialist bodies must have an influential 
 eff"ect upon the rank and file. The Taflf Vale 
 judgment, the Chinese Labour Question in South 
 Africa, and the Education Bill of 1902, together with 
 the question of Free Trade versus Protection, all 
 helped to make the return of Labour men as well 
 as Liberals fairly easy. These questions w^ere also 
 common to Liberals as well as Labour, so nearly 
 all the Labour men received almost the undivided 
 support of the Liberals. Indeed, many of the 
 Labour men played up to the Liberals, and in some 
 instances sought an alliance with the Liberals, and 
 even went to Liberal Clubs advocating reciprocity. 
 This was done in spite of the pledge given " to 
 abstain strictly from identifying themselves with,
 
 TRADE UXTONISIM 85 
 
 or promoting the interests of, any section of the 
 Liberal or Conservative Parties." Altliough this 
 pledge was violated by doing so, it was a wise 
 thing to do, to work in harmony with those who 
 were in sympathy with the Labour movement. But 
 if this was so necessary to the success of some of 
 the candidates, why sign the pledge at all ? Unless 
 it was for the only object of securing the pay. 
 
 After the General Election, however, and twenty- 
 nine members of the Labour Party were elected, 
 they threw overboard the Caxton Hall Concordat, 
 called a meeting of these twenty-nine members only, 
 and left outside the twenty-three Trade Union 
 representatives. Hence there became two groups 
 of Labour representatives in the House. Invariably 
 these two act together on all questions affecting 
 labour, for a Trade Unionist of a lifetime or a 
 secretary of a large Trade Union has as much of 
 the interests and welfare of labour at heart, without 
 signifying as much by way of signing a pledge to 
 that effect, as some of those who were not, or never 
 had been, Trade Unionists, but only idealists or 
 theorists, and signed the pledge. Without signing 
 the pledge, however, they arc not recognised as 
 "Labour" men. The "Labour Party," during the 
 first year of their Parliamentary life, did no more 
 than those who were there before them, namely, en- 
 deavour to carry out the measures and wishes of
 
 80 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 the Trades Union Congress and the Parliamentary 
 Committee ; but, of course, fifty -two men with an 
 absolutely sympathetic Government and party in 
 power, could accomplish much greater success than 
 fourteen men with an unsympathetic Government 
 and reactionary party in power. The Liberal 
 Government also introduced measures more in 
 harmony with the needs of the working classes than 
 did their predecessors when in ofiSce. This gave the 
 Labour member greater opportunities to come to the 
 front. If only measures similar to those we had 
 been accustomed to for several years before the new 
 Parliament had been introduced, then the same 
 opportunities could not have been given to the 
 Labour members, and their success would be consider- 
 ably less. It is well that everybody does not accept 
 all that has been said about the accomplishments of 
 the " Labour Party" by some of the members of the 
 party, because a few of them claim that the " Labour 
 Party," or the thirty Labour members, as a few of 
 them refer to themselves, did everything or compelled 
 the Government to do everything as they bid. No 
 mention is made of or credit given to the twenty- 
 two Trade Union members, or the Government and 
 their supporters, for having done anything, not even 
 assisted them. It does seem, therefore, that only 
 " Labour " members who sign the pledge are to be 
 credited with having accomplished anything, whether
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 87 
 
 they deserved it or not. It would have been very 
 interesting if the thirty men had been in Parliament 
 during the ten years previous, to see how much they 
 would have been able to compel the late Government 
 and party in power. Some compelling force was 
 really necessary, and while the fourteen Labour 
 members then in the House did their best, they were 
 unsuccessful. The constituencies may for a while be 
 carried away by some of the boastful speeches that are 
 made, and invariably in constituencies other than the 
 sjDeaker's own, but people are generally judged rather 
 by their actions and their records than by their 
 speeches, which, after all, are only surface soil, and are 
 not always fruitful. It would be interesting also, if 
 some of the speeches were made by the speakers in 
 their own constituencies, to see how the Liberals liked 
 to be ill-referred to by those who played up to them 
 during the election. Certain it is that many would 
 not be members of Parliament now if Liberals 
 were so bad as they are frequently represented 
 to be. 
 
 That a good number of direct representatives 
 of labour should be in the House of Commons is 
 consented to by everybody. In fact, every such 
 representative body as Parliament, and all other 
 public bodies, should have a fair proportion of every 
 class. Fair and just laws cannot be enacted unless 
 there are engaged in making such laws practical men.
 
 88 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 who are familiar with all the details of the subjects 
 for which they are legislating. A House of Commons 
 full of the deepest sympathy with the aspirations of 
 labour cannot legislate so efficiently, nor even equal 
 to their own desires, for labour without the assistance 
 and experience of those who are directly representing 
 labour. It becomes, therefore, essentially necessary 
 that there should be in the House of Commons men 
 representing all shades of labour. This could be 
 secured without all the formalities of pledge-signing 
 and swearing hostility to everybody but those who 
 condescend to sign pledges, which do not convey 
 clearly whence it may lead one to. 
 
 The policy of the " Socialist Labour Party," 
 although they have nearly a million members 
 affiliated, does not meet with the full concurrence 
 of all those members, and a great deal of dissatis- 
 faction exists in many Unions over it. Thousands 
 of Trade Unionists who have been many years 
 members, and who have been pioneers in the Trade 
 Union movement, helped to build it up numerically 
 and financially, who have been and are loyal to the 
 first and main objects of Trade Unionism, namely, 
 " to improve the conditions and protect the interests 
 of the members," object to it being extended outside 
 these objects. They object to their contributions 
 being spent upon those who are outside of the Trade 
 Unions, and for the payment of salaries to members
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 89 
 
 of Parliament who are not Trade Unionists. "While 
 the whole of the members in most Unions approve 
 of someone representing the interests of their 
 Unions in Parliament, they by no means approve of 
 their money going to pay Socialist representatives. 
 The rules of most of the Unions have been altered 
 so as to make the contribution of one shilling per 
 year to th Parliamentary Fund compulsory, and 
 therefore most of them pay reluctantly, whilst some 
 are passive resisters, and eventually will be ex- 
 cluded and have to forfeit all the benefits for which 
 they have been subscribing many years. It cannot 
 be said, therefore, that the million members affiliated 
 to the " Socialist Labour Party " are convinced of 
 the utility of amalgamating Trade Unions and 
 Socialist Societies. The reply to the suggestion 
 that the Parliamentary contribution should be 
 voluntary always, is that " the members would 
 not pay it." Then, nothing need be clearer than 
 they do not approve of, nor are they convinced 
 with, the policy, and any movement which has to 
 be maintained by compulsion is not so substantial as 
 it ought to be. Trade Unionists may be compelled 
 to pay towards the Parliamentary Fund of their 
 Unions, but they cannot be compelled to vote for 
 any candidate whom they do not desire. 
 
 The Parliamentary Committee have always wisely 
 adopted the policy of not recognising any distinctions
 
 90 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 between " Labour " members, whether they have 
 signed the "pledge" of the Labour Party or have 
 not done so, but whenever the Parliamentary 
 Committee desire to confer with the Labour 
 members upon any subject in which they are 
 interested, they call together the whole of the 
 Labour members, and they have not found one 
 instance in which united action has not been the 
 result. It is not the object of the Parliamentary 
 Committee to take sides with any party qua party, 
 but only to secure the accomplishment of the 
 objects they desire as adopted at the Trades Union 
 Congress. 
 
 This should be the policy of the Trade Unions 
 also. If they have any special interest in some 
 measure necessary for the protection of the interests 
 of their members, or of the members of any other 
 Union with which they sympathise, then it should 
 be the main object of all to do everything in their 
 power to secure the passage of such measure, and 
 whichever party is the most likely to concede their 
 desire, that is the party for the time being to support, 
 and that would be the most likely method to succeed 
 longest and best. The policy of securing the signed 
 "pledge" of everybody to be entitled to call himself 
 a " Labour " member is not the most conducive to the 
 greatest unity. It is paradoxical if not hypocritical. 
 For instance, a millionaire who may never have worked
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 91 
 
 ill liis life, but has inherited his wealth or made it 
 out of profits from industry and labour, and who joins 
 the Independent Labour Party, may be nominated 
 as a "Labour" candidate and get his candidature 
 endorsed by the "Labour" Party. If he should 
 be successful and get elected, he would be called by 
 the title of a "Labour" member. On the other 
 hand, if a man who worked in the mine, in the mill, 
 at the bench, or on the railway, and worked wp to 
 the position of a General Secretary or other office 
 ill his Trade Union, does not sign the "pledge," 
 he is not permitted to have his candidature endorsed 
 by the "Labour" Party, and if successful at the 
 poll he is denied the title of " Labour " member. 
 This does appear paradoxical. 
 
 Signing the "pledge" means that everyone must 
 abide by the decision of the Party, whether his 
 convictions are aQ;reeable to such decision or not. 
 It has not always been carried out. The Party 
 decided in favour of certain secular proposals in the 
 Education Bill of the Government in 1906, but 
 four of the members of the Party voted against or 
 contrary to the decision of the Party. This is 
 inconsistent. If a "pledge" there must be, then 
 it should be carried out irrespective of what the 
 wish of the constituencies may be. If the con- 
 stituencies should not like the vote given by their 
 member, and they decide to turn him out at the
 
 92 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 next election, let this be done, but Ijc loyal to the 
 "pledge." 
 
 There is again the danger of the Party taking up 
 subjects outside of purely labour questions. Aii 
 instance of this is given in Mr. Keir Hardie, last 
 Session of 1906, committing the Party to the limited 
 Enfranchisement of Women movement. This may 
 be a worthy movement and a laudable object, as there 
 are many others, but it cannot in any sense be 
 termed a " labour " question. The limited measure as 
 contained in the Bill introduced by Mr. Keir Hardie 
 would, under present conditions, only enfranchise 
 propertied women. Wives and daughters of work- 
 ing men living at home with their husbands and 
 parents respectively, and not having the distinction 
 of being householders, would not secure a vote. 
 Whilst it may be argued that it is a stepping-stone 
 to adult suffrage, it cannot be termed a "labour" 
 question. 
 
 The Labour Party Conference held in Belfast in 
 January 1907 also held this opinion, and rejected 
 a motion in favour of the Party in Parliament 
 taking it up. After this decision of the Conference, 
 Mr. Keir Hardie said that " if the decision was to 
 limit the actions of the members in Parliament he 
 would have to seriously consider whether he would 
 not have to resign from the Party." 
 
 Mr. Keir Hardie, in the course of a personal
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 93 
 
 statement relative to the subject made in the 
 Labour Leader, of 1st February, the official organ 
 of the Independent Labour Party, said: "The 
 Labour Party is too much a part of myself, has too 
 many years of my life in it, to make severance from 
 it a light matter, but I cannot be a party to an act 
 of injustice. . . . Democracy means the rule of the 
 majority, and the majority at Belfast, under a 
 misapprehension due to a sense of irritation, I think, 
 pronounced against the enfranchisement of women. 
 But woe betide the day in the life of a nation in 
 which its public men have not the courage to 
 sacrifice i^lace and iwpularity at the call of 
 conscience^ 
 
 Here again the signed " pledge " comes in conflict 
 with conscience. If conscience is to be allowed to 
 operate, then the signing of pledges must be removed. 
 It is an absolute impossibility for the two to always 
 harmonise. On most, if not every question, directly 
 aff'ecting the interests of labour, all Labour repre- 
 sentatives in Parliament are conscientiously likely to 
 agree and act together. This would be practical 
 action, whilst merely signing a pledge is impractical 
 theory. 
 
 One Parliamentary year is not sufficient to enable 
 a correct judgment and opinion being formed of how 
 a " pledged " Party consisting of pronounced Socialists 
 and anti-Socialists will conscientiously harmonise,
 
 94 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 especially as that year happened to contain measures 
 most directly affecting the interests of Trade Unions 
 and Labour generally, namely, the Trades Disputes Bill 
 and the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Bill. 
 It is when the House will contain less fruitful 
 measures to labour direct, and subjects more of 
 political than industrial character, that the con- 
 sciences will be most likely to operate and divisions 
 arise. 
 
 It is to be hoped such a regrettable incident will 
 not occur. To avoid that, the policy of the Labour 
 Party should be broad enough to admit within its 
 ranks all classes of direct Labour representatives on 
 the principle of the recognition of the Parliamentary 
 Committee of the Trades Union Conoress. Con- 
 sideration must be allowed to the constituencies 
 where they vary so much in opinion. One con- 
 stituency may be advanced Socialistic and will only 
 have a Socialist, while another would not look at a 
 Socialist but would accept a less extreme though a 
 Labour representative. Freedom must be allowed 
 in such circumstances. The members of the Trade 
 Unions in each contribute alike to the Common 
 Fund, and if liberty of conscience is allowed they 
 will agreeably contribute. If, on the contrary, a 
 policy prevails of one section forcing its views upon 
 the opinions of all others, then payment wiU be made 
 with the greatest reluctance. There are invariably
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 95 
 
 three kinds of political opinion existing amongst 
 the members of Trade Unions : Conservatives, 
 Liberals, and Socialists. The loudest protester of 
 the three is the Socialist, who is vehement in his 
 condemnation of a Labour member who may happen 
 to support a Liberal candidate in another con- 
 stituency even if there be no Labour candidate. 
 He is never heard to complain against supporting 
 a Conservative. The Liberal objects to supporting 
 l)oth Conservative and Socialist, and the Conserva- 
 tive objects less to supporting a Liberal than a 
 Socialist. The remedy for all this is for Labour 
 representatives to support neither so long as each 
 class pay equal contributions. It was with this 
 object that the "Independent" Labour Party in 
 the House of Commons was formed. But whilst 
 the Trade Unionists find nearly the whole of the 
 funds, and no less than seven Socialists receive 
 payments of £200 per year each from this fund, 
 the Socialists are permitted to propagate Socialism 
 and support Socialists to their hearts' content, 
 because this is their conviction. Other members 
 who may be either Liberal or Conservative inclined, 
 whose consciences may dictate to them that they 
 should support candidates of their own views, 
 who may be strong supporters of many Labour 
 reforms, are strictly forbidden and arc generally 
 branded as "traitors" to the cause of labour if
 
 96 TRADE UNIONISxM 
 
 they do. Herein comes the unfairness. So long 
 as the contributions are placed in the same bowl, 
 and each one draws out of the same bowl, then 
 all should cease propagating their own political 
 views or support candidates or parties of their 
 own opinions. For it cannot be stated that all 
 the Trade Unionists who are compelled to con- 
 tribute towards the Parliamentary Fund are Socialists, 
 nor can they be all convinced that Socialism is likely 
 to be the certain cure for all ills, as persuaded by 
 some Socialists. 
 
 If the Independent Labour Party desires to have 
 freedom to propagate its faith and policy at will, and 
 no one else is to be allowed to express his faith 
 and convictions, then the fair thing would be for 
 the Independent Labour Party to finance their own 
 candidates and members, and not draw so heavily 
 from the Trade Union funds. 
 
 Trade Unionists are not all concerned about 
 Socialism. What they are concerned about is, they 
 pay heavy subscriptions to their Unions for the 
 improvement and protection of their conditions of 
 labour, to secure the best terms possible and obtain 
 the highest value for their labour, protection for 
 their health, prevention from accidents, and com- 
 fortable conditions whereby they can perform their 
 labours. Many of these in part can be secured 
 outside Parliament through their Unions, but can
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 97 
 
 be more completely obtcained by the auxiliary efforts 
 of their own class, with full knowledge and experi- 
 ence of their aspirations, from within the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 Upon questions of these kinds there could Ije 
 no division of opinion, and every Labour memljer, 
 whether he belonged to the " pledged " Party or 
 to the non-pledged Trade Union Section, would 
 heartily unite with every other section which might 
 have the same objects in view. In such matters 
 united action would be secured without any 
 "pledges," and if so, why demand "pledges"? 
 Any Labour representative who opposed measures 
 of the kind would have a short career with his 
 own Union, and more than likely in representing 
 his constituency. The demanding of a man's 
 signature to a " pledge " to abide hy any decision 
 of the Party upon some future unknown thing 
 must appear as having some ulterior motive, and 
 cannot for long maintain that extreme discipline. 
 At the Belfast Conference, after only one year of 
 Parliamentary experience, the members of Parliament 
 "pledged "to the Party pleaded for more freedom. 
 The Conference, however, did not grant this recjuest, 
 as by now the disciplinarians have got so strong 
 that it will be most difficult to relax it. Had the 
 relaxation of discipline been advocated a few years 
 earlier, or the second clause of the Constitution of 
 7
 
 98 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 the Party allowed to remain as it was at first, 
 there would never have been, nor ought there to be, 
 two groups of Labour representatives in the House. 
 It was not until three years after the formation of 
 the Party that the " pledge " was decided upon. 
 Strange to say, the principal advocates of this were 
 Mr. Keir Hardie and his followers. Some of his 
 followers failed to be loyal to it during the 
 1906 Session, when they voted contrary to the 
 decisions of the Party on one or two questions. 
 But the rejection of the Woman's Suffrage 
 Bill by the Conference was too much for j\Ir. 
 Hardie himself, who, perhaps for the first time, 
 found his conscience coming into conflict with his 
 " pledge." 
 
 This instance may do more than anything else 
 to relax the excessive discipline enforced upon the 
 members, and allow a little liberty of conscience 
 and action to all. Indeed, a Labour member, or, 
 for the matter of that, any other member, would 
 be utterly unworthy of his position if he could not 
 be trusted to represent his constituents of both 
 kinds, the members of his Union and the electors 
 in his constituency. To sign a "blank" pledge, 
 to be obedient to a decision on some future date 
 upon some questions unknown, is like signing a 
 blank cheque and letting the payee fill it in. It 
 has a more important moral effect even than that —
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 99 
 
 it assumes to dictate to a constituency of electors 
 what their representative shall do, and how he 
 shall do it, and totally disregarding the opinions 
 of those who elected him. Parliament would thus 
 become an assembly of delegates of a section, and 
 not a House of Representatives. 
 
 The British electors are not likely to tolerate 
 such a system for long. 
 
 Foreign, Colonial, Imperial, Naval, Military, and 
 Eeligious affairs, besides many Home subjects, are 
 matters upon which opinions will differ, and no 
 ^^ledge can compel men to act contrary to their 
 consciences and the opinions of their constituencies. 
 Labour members are invariably men in favour of 
 Peace. Supposing the Labour Party decided in 
 favour of pressing the Government to cease building 
 Warships, would the Labour members representing 
 Dockyards vote with their Party and against their 
 constituents ? It is a certainty they would not. 
 Many other illustrations of the same kind may be 
 quoted, which clearly shows the absurdity of de- 
 manding a "pledge" to something unknown at the 
 time. The desire of the Labour Party is only equal 
 to the desire of many others equally anxious for 
 the uplifting of the masses of the people. All 
 Labour men are agreed upon this, and there are 
 many questions upon which there would be com- 
 plete unanimity without any "pledge." Then why
 
 100 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 divide a body by such a demand, who would other- 
 wise be united ? 
 
 The greatest success will come from a Labour 
 Party united upon all questions directly affecting 
 labour, with freedom of conscience and liberty of 
 action on all other matters. 
 
 If the Labour Party will revert to the policy 
 and line of action pursued by the Parliamentary 
 Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and work 
 unitedly with that body, recognising all Labour 
 representatives on an equality, distinguishing be- 
 tween none who honestly support them, and seek 
 the support of all other candidates for, or members 
 of Parliament who are likely to, and who are known 
 will, support the greatest number of the demands 
 of labour, then greater reforms in the safety of 
 the workpeople, healthy and better conditions of 
 labour, better homes and surroundings, less degener- 
 ation through want of employment, and some pro- 
 vision for the aged and worn-out industrial warriors, 
 can be achieved without eno-enderinsj class hatred 
 or bitterness of feelinsfs. It should be recognised 
 that men holding honest convictions cannot and 
 will not be coerced. Greater results can be 
 accomplished by moderation, toleration, and co- 
 operation. 
 
 Trade Unions are qualified, competent, and able 
 to work out reforms if the men were to support
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 101 
 
 them more. All tlie eftbrts possible should be 
 made to organise all working men in their respec- 
 tive Trade Unions and avoid sectionalism, then 
 their support would be secured ; while outside, 
 their support cannot be relied upon even in any 
 effort made to ameliorate* their own conditions.
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE TWO TRADE 
 UNION BILLS 
 
 GOVERNMENT BILL, 1906 
 
 A Bill to provide for the regulation of 
 Trades Unions and Trade Disputes 
 
 T)E it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, 
 -'-^ by and with the advice and consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
 Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the 
 same, as follows : — 
 
 1. Ame^idment of laiv of conspiracy in the case 
 of trade dis2)utes (38 d 39 Vict. c. 86). — The follow- 
 ing paragraph shall be added as a new paragraph 
 after the first paragraph of section three of the Con- 
 spiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 : — 
 
 " An act done in pursuance of an agreement or 
 combination by two or more persons shall, if done in 
 contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not 
 be actionable unless the act, if done without any 
 such agreement or combination, would be actionable 
 as a tort." 
 
 102
 
 APPENDIX 103 
 
 2. Peaceful piche ting. — (1) It shall be lawful for 
 one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on 
 behalf of a trade union in contemplation of further- 
 ance of a trade dispute, to attend peaceably and in a 
 reasonable manner, at or near a house or place where 
 u person resides or works or carries on business or 
 happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose 
 of obtaining or communicating information, or of per- 
 suading any person to work or abstain from working. 
 
 (2) Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protec- 
 tion of Property Act, 1875, is hereby repealed from 
 " attending at or near" to the end of the section. 
 
 3. Removal of liability for interfering with 
 another person's business, etc. — X\\ act done by a 
 person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade 
 dispute shall not be actionable as a tort on the 
 ground only that it is an interference with the trade, 
 business, or employment of some other person, or 
 with the right of some other person to dispose of his 
 capital or his labour as he wills. 
 
 4. Py^ohibition of actions of tort against trade 
 unions except in certain circumstances. — (l) Where 
 n committee of a trade union constituted as hereinafter 
 mentioned has been appointed to conduct on behalf 
 of the union a trade dispute, an action whereby it is 
 sous^ht to charo-e the funds of the union with damao;es 
 in respect of any tortious act committed in contem- 
 plation or furtherance of the trade dispute, shall not 
 lie, unless the act was committed by the committee 
 or by some person acting under their authority : 
 
 Provided that a person shall not be deemed to
 
 104 APPENDIX 
 
 have acted under the authority of the committee if 
 the act was an act or one of a class of acts expressly 
 prohibited by a resolution of the committee, or the 
 committee by resolution expressly repudiate the act 
 as soon as it is brou2;lit to their knowledore. 
 
 (2) The committee may be a committee appointed 
 either generally to conduct all trade disputes in 
 which the union may be involved, or to conduct any 
 trade disputes of a specified class or in a specified 
 locality, or to conduct any particular trade dispute. 
 
 5. Short title and construction. — (1) This Act 
 may be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and 
 the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and this Act 
 may be cited together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 
 to 1906. 
 
 (2) In this Act the expression "trade union" has 
 the same meaning as in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 
 and 1876. 
 
 LABOUR MEMBERS' BILL, 1906 
 
 A Bill to Amend the Law relating to Trades 
 Unions and Trade and other Disputes 
 
 T)E it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, 
 -*^ by and with the advice and consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
 Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the 
 same, as follows : —
 
 APPENDIX 105 
 
 1. Legalisation of peaceful picketing. — It shall 
 be lawful for any person or persons actings: either on 
 their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or 
 other association of individuals, registered or unregis- 
 tered, in contemplation of or during the continuance 
 of any trade dispute, to attend for any of the follow- 
 ing purposes at or near a house or place where a 
 person resides or works, or carries on his business, 
 or happens to be — 
 
 (1) for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or 
 
 communicating information ; 
 
 (2) for the purpose of peacefully persuading 
 
 any person to work or abstain from work- 
 ing. 
 
 2. Amendment of law of conspiracy. — An agree- 
 ment or combination by two or more persons to do 
 or procure to be done any act in contemplation or 
 furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for 
 an action, if such act when committed by one person 
 would not be ground for an action. 
 
 3. Protection of trade union funds. — An action 
 shall not be brought against a trade union, or other 
 association aforesaid, for the recovery of damage 
 sustained by any person or persons by reason of the 
 action of a member or members of such trade union 
 or other association aforesaid. 
 
 4. Short title. — This Act may be cited as the 
 Trades Dispute Act, 190G.
 
 TRADES DISPUTE ACT, 1906 
 
 Chapter ^IT} 
 
 An Act to provide for the regulation of 
 Trades Unions and Trade Disputes. 
 
 [21st December 1906] 
 
 "DE it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, 
 -^ by and with the advice and consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
 Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the 
 same, as follows : — 
 
 1. Amendment of laiv of conspiracy in the case 
 of trade disputes {%^^-%^-^^ie^c. 86). — The 
 following paragraph shall be added as a new para- 
 graph after the first paragraph of section three of 
 the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 
 1875 :— 
 
 " An act done in pursuance of an agreement or 
 combination by two or more persons shall, if done 
 in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, 
 not be actionable unless the act, if done without 
 any such agreement or combination, would be 
 actionable." 
 
 2. Peaceful p)icketing. — (l) It shall be lawful 
 for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf 
 
 106
 
 APPENDIX 107 
 
 or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual 
 employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of 
 a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place 
 where a person resides or works or carries on business 
 or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the 
 purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating- 
 information, or of peacefully persuading any person 
 to work or abstain from workino-. 
 
 o 
 
 (2) Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protec- 
 tion of Property Act, 1875, is hereby repealed from 
 " attending at or near " to the end of the section. 
 
 3. Removal of liability for interfeHng ivith 
 another loersoiis business, etc. — An act done by a 
 person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade 
 dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only 
 that it induces some other person to break a contract 
 of employment or that it is an interference with the 
 trade, business, or employment of some other person, 
 or with the right of some other person to dispose of 
 liis capital or his labour as he wills. 
 
 4. Prohibition of actions of tort against trade 
 wiions. — (l) An action against a trade union, 
 whether of workmen or masters, or against any 
 members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves 
 and all other members of the trade union in respect 
 of any tortious act alleged to have l)ecn committed 
 by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be 
 entertained by any court, 
 
 (2) 34 & 35 Vict, c. 31. — Nothing in this section 
 shall affect the liability of the trustees of a trade 
 union to be sued in the events provided for by the
 
 108 APPENDIX 
 
 Trades Union Act, 1871, section nine, except in 
 respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf 
 of the union in contemplation or in furtherance of a 
 trade dispute. 
 
 5. Short title and construction. — (l) This Act 
 may be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and 
 the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and this Act 
 may be cited together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 
 to 1906. 
 
 (2) In this Act the expression " trade union " has 
 the same meaning as in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 
 and 1876, and shall include any combination as 
 therein defined, notwithstanding that such combina- 
 tion may be the branch of a trade union. 
 
 (3) In this Act and in the Conspiracy and Pro- 
 tection of Property Act, 1875, the expression "trade 
 dispute " means any dispute between employers and 
 workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which 
 is connected with the employment or non-employ- 
 ment or the terms of the employment, or with the 
 conditions of labour, of any person, and the expres- 
 sion " workmen " means all persons employed in trade 
 or industry, whether or not in the employment of th 
 employer with whom a trade dispute arises ; and, ii 
 section three of the last-mentioned Act, the words 
 " between employers and workmen " shall be repealed. 
 
 Printed by Morrison & Gibb Limited, Edinburgh 
 
 L->sIVEi:Siry OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 Social Problems Series 
 
 This new Series will aim at treating current questions of social 
 interest not only in a lucid and popular manner, but also in the 
 light of present-day principles, present-day facts and, above all, 
 present-day needs. 
 
 The volumes are, in every case, entrusted to writers who have 
 made a special and detailed study of the themes with which they 
 are called on to deal, and the library as a whole will constitute 
 an admirable means of acquiring a competent knowledge of those 
 problems which it is at present the duty of every citizen to study 
 and to solve.- 
 
 The Children. By Professor Alex. Darroch, M.A., Edin- 
 burgh University. 
 
 The Citizen and his Duties. By W. F. Trotter, M.A., 
 
 LL.B., Lecturer on Law in the University of Cambridge. 
 
 Land Values and Taxation. By Edwin Adam, M.A., 
 
 LL.B. 
 
 Trade Unionism. By R. Bell, M.P., Secretary Amal- 
 gamated Railway Servants' Association, London. 
 
 Charity Organization. By C. S. Loch, B.A., Tooke Professor 
 
 of Economic Science, King's College, London, and Secretary Charity 
 Organization Society. 
 
 The Liquor Question, including Licensing. By Arthur 
 
 Sherwell, Joint Author of the "Temperance Problem and Social 
 Reform." 
 
 Allotments and Labour Colonies. By Edward McGegan, 
 
 Assistant Editor of the Industrial Pioneer. 
 
 Housing of the Working Classes. By Rev. M. Kaufman, 
 
 M.A., Author of "Socialism and Modern Thought." 
 
 The Problem of the Unemployed. By C. H. Grin ling. 
 Clubs for Working Classes. By Rev. C Rollane 
 
 Ramsay, M.A., Secretary Christian Social Union. 
 Socialism. By J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P. 
 
 3 3 00 
 
 Large Crown Svo, stiff paper covers^ is. net. 
 
 London: T. C. & E. C. JACK, i6 Henrietta Street, W.C. ; 
 and Edinburgh. 
 
 ^^
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 ., ^ 
 
 \%^^ 
 
 APR 1 f 195« 
 
 Form L9-25m-9,'47(A5618)444 
 
 U;n k CALIFORNIA 
 
 .\T 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 IIBRABY
 
 HD 
 
 6664 
 
 B41t 
 
 Y 
 
 3 1158 01027 3216 
 
 ■»'■ . M .. .K. • "- ' ■■ V ^ 
 
 ■..AC.:^ / 
 
 il"r^^?VJ"f".'y"FGlONAL,,R«.pv, 
 
 ^A 001 109 176