Graham, W. O'Brien, Sir P. O'Conor Don, The O'Loghlen, Sir C. M. Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury Trevelyan, G. 0. Vandeleur, Colonel Vanderbyl, P. Verney, Sir H. Villiers, rt. hn. C. P. Vivian, Capt. hn.J.C.W. Waring, C. Watkin, E. W. Western, Sir T. B. Whalley, G. H. Whatman, J. White, hon. Capt. C. Whitworth, B. Williamson, Sir H. Winnington, Sir T. E. Woods, H. Wynne, W. R. M. Wyvill, M. TELLERS. Dilke, Sir W. Baguall, C. Bailey, Sir J. R. Brooks, R. Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Herbert, hon. Col. P. Horsfall, T. B. Walker, Major G. G. Howes, E. Hubbard, J. G. Huddleston, J. W. Innes, A. C. Karslake, Sir J. B. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Motion agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) MR. SELWYN urged that the University of Cambridge and its representatives had had no opportunity of considering the principle of the Bill, since at the second reading its operation was proposed to be confined to Oxford. He thought they were entitled to such an opportunity before the measure proceeded further, and to put himself in order he would move that the Chairman report Progress. MR. COLERIDGE expressed surprise at such an objection being taken, for his hon. and learned Friend, as also the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), had on previous occasions taken part in the discussion of this measure. The Bill was very short. It proposed to Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. admit Dissenters to the Convocation of Oxford, and if extended to Cambridge, would, of course, admit them to the Senate of that University. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed. Naas, Lord Neeld, Sir J. MR. SELWYN, in explanation, remarked that on the second reading the Bill was confined to Oxford, and the hon. Member for that University (Sir William Heathcote) intimated his intention to propose Amendments which would he hoped be accepted. It would therefore have appeared a waste of time for the friends of Cambridge to take part in the discussion; but by the Instruction the Bill altered the position in which Cambridge was at present placed, and they ought to have an opportunity of considering it. MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, that until five minutes ago this was an Oxford Bill, and Cambridge now found itself in the position of a measure having been read a second time, by which its internal constitution was vitally affected. Under these circumstances, it was only fair that Clause 1 (Persons taking Lay Academical Degrees not to be required to take any Religions Oath or subscribe any Formulary of Faith). MR. WALPOLE asked, whether the hon. Members in charge of the Bill had considered the form of the Amendments which would be necessary in order to carry out the Instruction. The term Convocation was not applicable to Cambridge. M5. FAWCETT said, it would be sufficient in most cases to add the words "and Cambridge." ASSOCIATIONS OF WORKMEN BILL. (Mr. Neate, Mr. Thomas Hughes.) [BILL 21.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. NEATE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained, that in proposing this measure he had no inof the Court of Queen's Bench, which if tention of impugning the recent judgment questioned at all ought to be appealed against in the House of Lords; but simply wished to restore to trade societies that right of summary process before a magistrate against a defaulting treasurer which prior to that judgment they practically enjoyed. The recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench had virtually taken away this power from trades union societies, and had placed them almost out of the pale of the law. Another effect of that judgment was, that the duty was thrown upon the magistrate of deciding upon the nature of any particular society that might or was not of a political character—a duty before him, as to whether it was appear which he believed that they were unwilling, and might in some cases be incompetent, to discharge. The right of combiIn page 2, line 5, after "notwithstand-nation for the purpose of reducing the ing," insert SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE said, he had given notice of two Amendments, the object of which was to bring the University of Oxford to the position in which Cambridge now stood; but, after the division which had taken place, he felt that it would be useless to go to a division, though he wished to place his Amendments on record. Amendments proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after "thereof," insert "except being or becoming a member of the ConVocation of the said University." "And any person who shall have obtained any such degree as now confers a title on the holder thereof to become a member of the said Convoca tion shall thereby, and although he shall not have subscribed such articles or formulary, nor have made nor taken such declaration or oath, be entitled to obtain, under the provisions and subject to the other conditions of the Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth Victoria, chapter eighty one, a licence to open his residence for the reception of students."-(Sir William Heathcote.) MR. COLERIDGE said, that he must oppose the Amendments, for he considered that the only hope of effecting any good by the Bill was to pass it in its integrity. At the same time, in reference to the colleges, he wished to say that he had no desire to touch them, and he believed that they were wholly unaffected by the operation of the Bill; but if any hon. Member could point to any words that could be construed into any interference with the present condition of the colleges, he should be prepared to amend them. Amendments negatived. Remaining clauses agreed to. House resumed. hours of work or of raising the price of labour, was conferred upon workmen as far back as the year 1818; but the effect of the recent judgment would be, that any arrangement of this sort, however expressly it might exclude anything like the exercise of violence, might come within the principle laid down by the learned Judge, and thus drive the society from its legal status. He therefore felt that the Legislature was called upon to interfere for the purpose of remedying the inconveniences that attended the present position of these societies. The question was not whether trades unions were societies which deserved special encouragement, but whether they were of so pernicious a character that they ought to be excluded from advantages extended to harmless societies. With the economical character of trades unions the House had nothing to do; and if they were political bodies they were only slightly so. But were they not of use in preventing violence and the destruction of property? Some time ago a glowing account was published of the excellent relations existing between Bill reported; as amended, to be con- the Belgian workmen and their employers; sidered Tomorrow. but soon after that we heard of a very formidable outbreak on the part of some of those workmen. Even if there were no trades unions we could not prevent differences from arising between employers and the employed; and if the workmen had not an opportunity of constantly conferring together, their feelings might become aroused to a dangerous degree, and in case of a strike, having no funds to fall back upon, some of them might be tempted to have recourse to plunder and the destruction of property. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time as an admission of the difficulty which existed, and that Government would introduce a measure on the subject. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Neate.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, it was quite impossible for the Government to assent to the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press it. The objections he had to the Bill were founded on no reflections upon trades unions, nor upon any considerations of a political nature; nor was it because he thought these societies were contrary to public policy :-he objected to the Bill because it proceeded on the unprecedented principle of asking the sanction of the Legislature to an existing and continuing violation of the law. This was not a case in which the hon. Member having charge of the Bill said the law was wrong, and asked to have it repealed. Neither did the hon. and learned Gentleman ask for a mere indemnity for past and completed errors. These would be two intelligible propositions. But admitting, as he did, that the law had been violated that the Courts of Law had declared the constitution of these societies to be illegal-the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that, without an alteration of the law which had been so violated, legislative sanction and encouragement should be given to all societies continuing in a like course of illegality. Such a proposition was so inconsistent with every idea of legislation that he was surprised it should have been brought before the House. By the Friendly Societies Act of 1854 it was enacted that certain facilities should be given to societies of that kind, provided certain rules were complied with, and provided those societies were established for purposes not illegal. It appeared that the treasurer of a certain trades union was in default; proceedings against him were taken before the magistrates, when the objection was taken that the society was illegal, and that therefore the magistrate could not exercise any jurisdiction. Ultimately the case was brought to the Queen's Bench, which Court decided that it could not give the society relief in any way as against its defaulting treasurer. That decision was based, not on the fact that the society in question was a trades union, but on the fact that its rules were illegal, and consequently, that the society could not claim the benefit of the provision in the Friendly Societies Act. If his hon. and learned Friend objected to that decision, he could advise the society to go to the Court of Error. But, as he understood him, he did not object to it; neither did he ask the House to repeal the law; but he said, "Let the law continue as it is; let those societies continue to be illegal; I ask no alteration of the law respecting them; I ask that they may continue in their violation of the law, but that while so continuing they may have all the privi leges to which they would be entitled if they were acting in conformity to the law." Now, he submitted that such a proposition was self-contradictory. could understand an application from his hon. and learned Friend to have the benefits of the Friendly Societies Act extended to such trades unions as altered their rules so as to make them legal, and to have the Bill granting such extension retrospective so far as to include the liability of treasurers of such unions for money paid into their hands before the rules had been altered; but the proposition now before the House was one to which the Government could not give their consent, and he had to repeat the expression of his hope that his hon. and learned Friend would not press it. He MR. THOMAS HUGHES said, the remedy suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite impracticable. One of the objects of these societies was to assist their brethren when out of work, and to ask them to repeal the rules to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was simply asking them to extinguish themselves. He did not want to go into the question as to whether trades unions were good or whether they were bad. Those societies were in existence, and acting, as they believed, in such a manner as to give them the benefit of the 44th section of the Friendly Societies | discontented, whereas at present they were Act. The members had for the last all loyal and well-affected citizens. thirteen years been paying in sums of money to their treasurers, which sums, in consequence of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, were completely jeopardized. He knew a good deal of the circumstances connected with the framing of that 44th section. At the time it was under consideration persons interested in trades unions got the highest opinion that their rules were legal. No doubt, the very eminent gentleman who gave the opinion meant that the rules were not illegal in a sense which would render the members of the unions liable to a criminal prosecution; but the persons who consulted him understood the opinion to be that the rules were legal in the sense that would entitle the unions to the benefits of the provision in the 44th clause of the Friendly Societies Act, and, accordingly, they deposited their rules with the Registrar of the Friendly Societies in order that their unions might be brought under the Act. In point of fact, these societies thought that their rules had been sanctioned by a Government officer ; and he might remark that three years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), after careful consideration of the subject, allowed societies registered under the 44th clause to deposit their surplus funds in the Government savings banks. The number of these societies was forty-four. One of them had upwards of 33,000 members and a spare capital of £150,000; and branches of it were established not only in the large towns of the United Kingdom, but also in the United States and the colonies. Then there was the Society of Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners, with upwards of 200 branches and a fund of between £14,000 and £15,000. The funds of these societies were in the hands of their officers in every part of the country, who, unless some such measure as the present were carried, might pocket the money with impunity, as it had been decided that, as the law now stood, the societies had no remedy whatever. Now, what would be the effect produced on the minds of the members of these societies if they were left entirely without remedy-if they had no means of protecting their funds against frauds on the part of their officers? The effect of throwing out the Bill would be the exciting a sense of injustice in the minds of all the members of these societies, and which would make them very MR. POWELL thought that while the Commission was pursuing its inquiries the House ought to preserve a strict silence on the subject of these societies. There had been nothing in the action of Parliament during the last fifteen years which could be regarded as a recognition of those societies, and the House could not be held responsible for any misconstruction of the law under which they had acted. If the wide question of illegality were dealt with on the ground of restraint of trade their legislation would have to embrace not only trades unions but also masters. But though he had objections to the Bill, he did not wish it to be inferred that he was averse to some alteration of the law. Considering the number of men and the amount of capital in these societies he thought that their case ought to be considered by Parliament in a fair and friendly spirit. He thought it would be better if the present Bill were withdrawn and a special measure brought in. MR. J. STUART MILL said, that if he were a party man he should be enchanted at the course taken by the Government on this subject; since what they were now doing took away all the grace from the concession they had made in granting an inquiry into the subject of trades unions. As far as mere words went, nothing could sound fairer than to say to the unions— Set yourselves right before the law, and we will then see what can be done for you. But, what was the fact? The law which they were said to have violated was a mine sprung under them. No one dreamt of it until the recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Under the power which our law allowed the Judges to assume, of declaring that whatever was in restraint of trade was illegal, anything might be made law; but when a law was made in this way, it was to all intents and purposes a new law. As the law which these societies were said to have violated was a law of which they and everybody else had been entirely ignorant, the only rational course was to preserve the status quo until the whole subject had been reconsidered, which would only be done by legalizing provisionally the course which the societies had pursued, and allowing them to continue in that course until a final settlement was come to. It was a highly demoralizing practice to attempt to prevent people from doing what it was desired they |