On Friday week in the House of Commons Mr. Hudson
moved the second reading of a Trade Disputes Bill, which differed from the Government Bill introduced on the previous Wednesday in that it granted absolute immunity to a Trade- Union from actions brought against it la reason pf the con- duct of its members. The Bill was opposed from the Opposi- tion side by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. F. E. Smith, and defended by Mr. Keir Hardie and the Prime Minister, who announced that he was convinced by the arguments of the Bill's sup- porters, and preferred it to the Government measure. The second reading was carried by 416 vote to 66, several Unionists voting with the majority. The new Bill super- sedes the Government measure in so far as it conflicts with it. Lord Melbourne used to quote with approval a saying of William IV., that there were good Governments and bad Governments, but that the worst kind of Govern- ment was that which could not pass its own measures. Certainly the action of the Ministry in this case has not been conspicuous for wisdom or strength. We would call attention to two admirable letters on the subject in • the Times, one in the issue of Monday by Sir Godfrey Lushington, and the other in that of Tuesday by Professor Westlake, in which the dangerous discrimination which the Bill makes in favour of one class of the community is exposed with convincing logic. Between them they amply justify the criticisms we made last
week,—that the law of agency, which admittedly stood in need of emendation, is practically abolished by the proposed legislation in the case aof Trade-Unions, and that these are given a legal sacrosanctity which is a breach of our Constitu- tional traditiops and a menace to the public welfare.
Previous page
