TRADES UNIONISM
AT Scarborough last year the Trades Union Congress took the powers that enabled its Council to call the general strike. Whether the Congress considered the legality of those_ powers or whether the pronouncement of Mr. Justice Astbury was a surprise to them, we cannot say. What the Independent Labour Party thought of the Scarborough action was made plain shortly afterwards at the Conference at Liverpool. The opinion of Mr. MacDonald and of every man of real experience was clearly against the scheme. Men like Mr. Purcell knew quite well what they were about and bided their time until the Coal Dispute (and conceivably Muscovite pressure to begin " the revolution " on May Day) pointed to the moment for their experiment. The mass of trades unionists gave no indication of their judgment, and, knowing how faulty are their systems of balloting and card-voting, we cannot pretend to knowledge of their thoughts.
Certainly many thousands resented being called out, and the miners, we believe, resented having their nego- tiations delayed without their being consulted, on the plea that it was all to help them, which it certainly could not do. Probably few felt more bitter disappointment than many a trade union leader who after strenuous work for the men he represented had put his name to an agree- ment which, with innumerable others, was wantonly re- pudiated by the orders of the T.U.C.
We are not now going to enlarge upon Mr. Justice Astbury's judgment nor upon Sir John Simon's pro- nouncements on the legal position of trade union funds, but it may be well to recall how the present conditions arose. It is more than twenty years since the Taff Vale dispute was carried on to the delivery of the judgment that declared a trade union's funds liable for damages to the railway company due to the conduct of a strike. Considering how industrial history had taught the short- sightedness of the Combination Laws and of the opposi- tion to their repeal in the 'seventies, we think that the railway company made a mistake in bringing their action. It was too late in the day to " teach these fellows a lesson " in that way. The judges interpreted the law as they found it, and there was a general feeling that the law needed some alteration. Sir Henry Campbell-Banner- man's newly-elected Government brought in a Trade DispUtes Bill, which was in charge of the Attorney- General, Sir John Lawson Walton.. The Labour Party moved to insert a clause putting the unions outside the , Law and making their funds secure against any action for damages. Sir John resisted the clause, saying truly that it was against the whole spirit of British Law to put a section of the community outside it. Subsequently Sir Henry announced that the Cabinet threw over its law- officer and accepted the clause. Sir John resigned office and the clause became part of the Act of 1906. It was certainly a mistake. • Some milder protection of the funds should have been agreed upon. Liberals—even lawyers like Sir John Simon---accepted it because they felt that the Taff Vale judgment werked too harshly. The unions were not then the political bodies that we saw at Scar- borough. They still, had about them the air of Friendly Societies. To take money subscribed by a man for " benefits " and to hand it to his employers because other men had wronged those employers, however grossly, seemed unfair. This unfairness would be remedied by the sweeping clause, and too few feared the future effects of swinging the balance so far.
To change the Law violently again, as proposed by Mr. Macquisten's Political Levy Bill, does not seem to be the right way to tackle the present state of things. Yet we do want for the members' sake to see a clearer distinction between political or trade funds and the provident funds, sums subscribed and laid up for " benefits," than exists under the Act of 1913. No doubt there are lawyers and politicians at this moment cudgelling their brains in search of legislation that will improve matters, but we would far rather see the unions produce a scheme thought out by themselves. They can get any legal advice they need, and the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies should be their chief outside counsellor. We earnestly hope that the best heads in trades unionism will take this matter up and make a success of it, but to be successful they must first bring about another change. They must achieve more democratic methods of self- government. They are in the hands of small bureau- cratic or Soviet-ish oligarchies who have cleverly reached political power while the men whom they represent were unaware of the goal. We do not expect to see a return to the old Liberal type of union leader like Mr. Burt, or Mr. Maddison (who wrote such an excellent letter on the strike), nor to the steady wisdom preached by Mr. Appleton. But where are the disciples of those leaders ? The disciple may well be in advance of his teacher, but the T.U.C. has not advanced along the old lines ; it has taken an utterly divergent path, along which the unions cannot pass except to disaster. The steady, experienced workman has for various reasons refused to mix himself up in the local or general management of union affairs. We sympathize with his reluctance, but it must be over- come for his own sake, for his sons' sakes, for his country's sake. We beg all our readers who are trade unionists, or who influence them, to bestir themselves to overcome it.
Previous page
