76. The Friendly Society Act1 passed in 1875 was a consolidating measure conducted through Parliament by Sir Stafford Northcote, who had been chairman of the Friendly Societies Commission: it was designed to regulate the Benefit Societies which the people of this country had started for themselves, and thus to give them a firmer footing, but did not undertake to promote or direct them in any way. In this there was a general consensus of opinion, though it was most epigrammatically put by Mr. Cowen. "Friendly Societies wanted protection, not interference. By protection he meant protection from the improper proceedings of dishonest officials; but there should be no Government interference with the internal affairs of the societies." The difficulty in drafting a measure which should keep to these lines lay in the fact that the main security against fraud had to be obtained by insisting that greater publicity should be given to the affairs of the societies, and this end could only be attained by insisting on certain arrangements for valuations and audits, and thus interfering in the internal management of the societies. Sir Stafford Northcote described his measure by saying: "We recognise a state of things existing which we do not desire to disturb, but to assist and promote; and we desire, as far as possible, to provide for giving due publicity to the facts bearing on the status of different societies, so that those in whom the members have confidence may be able to tell them what appears to be the real position of the societies. Neither do we intend in any way to introduce unnecessary Government interference." Yet Dr. Cameron moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it introduced so "3 1 38 and 39 Vict. c. 60. 3 Ibid. ccxxii. 118. much interference into the management of registered societies that many societies would prefer a state of freedom even if they had no security against fraud, and that the Bill would thus defeat its own ends.1 A good deal of discussion took place, as was to be expected, on the details of the measure, on the relative advantages of local and central registration, and on the sufficiency of the security given against fraudulent officials. It would be useless to attempt to enter on these controversies now, but a few sentences may be taken from the speech in which Mr. Stansfeld laid down2 the principles which should regulate such legislation. "There were two principles under the guidance of which it appeared to him they might safely legislate. The first was that in the interests of the societies themselves and of the community at large, it was right that the societies should have ordinary protection against fraud-that they should be brought within the law and enabled to sue and be sued on easy terms. The second principle was not so absolute, although it recommended itself to his mind. It was that if after adopting the former principle they wished to apply a more stringent law in order, step by step, to raise the character and status of these popular bodies of men, it ought to be done by voluntary arrangement, and there ought to be nothing compulsory. Whilst granting protection to all societies, without registration, and on deposit of rules, he should be prepared to go much further than this Bill proposed to do in the direction of making more stringent regulations for the government of registered societies, and so to secure their practical solvency. He would be willing to leave registered societies a select class to be dealt with much more 13 Hansard, ccxxii. 852 2 Ibid. ccxxii. 884. stringently than they were at present, but to which additional privileges should be given in return." The expedient of having two kinds of society had been approved by four members of the Commission, but it had not gained the support of the majority and was not embodied in the Bill; but there was an obvious difficulty in treating all friendly societies alike, and in solving the difficult problem of protecting without interfering, for all of them in the same way. Had trade-unions, with the special bonds which exist between the members, and the special purposes of providing for the unemployed to which their funds are devoted,1 been included in the same scheme, the difficulties of carrying out the Act, which have been successfully met so far, would have been greatly increased. 77. Other measures were intended to improve the labourer's position, not by protecting his life and property but by conferring on him additional legal status and means of self-protection. A brief account has been given above of the nature of the legislation for labourers in England, from the time of Edward III. onwards. Fair conditions were devised-as the authorities believedand those who rebelled against these conditions were punished as criminals. The repeal of the combination laws had opened to the labourers a possibility of improving their position, but till 1867 they had continued subject to punishment as criminals for breach of contracts, while corresponding acts on the part of employers were dealt with in the civil courts. The Master and Servant Act of 1867, which is associated with the name of Lord Elcho, was intended to put the servant on the same legal footing with 1 Howell's Capital and Labour, 486. the master,1 and thus to secure them a fair field in which to settle their disputes. But capitalists and labourers are not on exactly the same footing-labourers were liable to temptations to "misdemeanours of an aggravated character" such as did not come in the way of capitalists; and the Act in question, by giving the justices a power of deciding whether misconduct was aggravated or not, left open a loop-hole by means of which the labourer was still subjected to an apparent injustice, while the administration of the law gave rise to conflicting decisions and the hardship which arises from uncertainty in such matters. When the whole position of trade-unions was altered by the Acts of 1871, it was hoped that this evil had been stopped; but though the Criminal Law Amendment Act specified the acts which were to be regarded as criminal, it did not succeed as had been intended in eliminating from this category the element of trade strikes ; while the Common Law in regard to conspiracy remained, and had been used to enlarge the definitions given in the Act of 1871.2 The administration of these two Acts had consequently given rise to much dissatisfaction, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Bill was introduced to put an end to these anomalies. The real difficulty lay in the fact that employer and employed are not on the same footing: the employer is a substantial man from whom damages may be obtained in a civil court, but just because the labourer is comparatively poor, the employer cannot secure similar redress for damage inflicted by the labourer's conduct. Lord Winmarleigh3 gave a case in point. "An iron manufacturer had a blast furnace in charge of three men. When the 1 Lord Elcho, 3 Hansard, ccxxv. 665. 2 Lord Cairns, 3 Hansard, ccxxvi. 37. 3 Ibid. ccxxvi. 40. 1 iron was in a liquid state, these men suddenly quitted their posts because their employer would not consent to certain terms they proposed. The consequence was that the iron got cold, and as it was impossible to melt the iron again unless the furnace was taken down, this had to be done at a cost of £2000. Their lordships would see that it was impossible to recover damages of such amount from the workmen who had no means of raising such sums." Considering the power which employers hold over men of depriving them of the opportunities of work, it may be doubted whether they do not possess sufficient means of enforcing the men's performance of their bargains. But that they should have a legal means of punishing their employés by imprisoning a breadwinner and thus reducing his family to poverty was a power which angels could not be trusted to use with discretion, and which "was fit to be done away with." This was accomplished by the third section of the Act which provided that "an agreement 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 indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime.” This Act has thus secured the status of the English workman in a remarkable manner: and it cannot be seriously contended that he has misused the position thus given. Trade disputes have not of course ceased, but they have been conducted with less bitterness, because less sense of injustice. Trade-unionists are twitted by Socialists at home 2 and abroad with their conservative 1 Compare Lord R. Montagu's Speech, 3 Hansard, ccxxv. 655, also Mr. MacDonald, ibid. 669. 2 Hyndman, Historical Basis of Socialism, 427. |