The Dominion. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1909.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 697, 23 December 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1909.

' M.P.'S AND PUBLIC POLICY; j;. v v:;;-y,-—-^--—;/.;-■- ;: >- i ,It is, reported to-day that the Privy Council has.'given its decision in the now •famous case oi Osborne y. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The ■', issues'raised in this case,.which we have discussed from time to" time during the past twelve months, are of great inter- | estand importance to every country : . in •! which trades unionism flburishSs. .The case arose out of the decision of the Society, which is a trades union, to apply a portion of its common fund to the payj ment of M.P.'s pledged to the Labour party in the House, of Commons. In a judgment delivered in July of last year Justice Neviue decided that the Society had the power so to: use its funds. This judgment was reversed by the Court judgment delivered in July of last year when it was held that, the Society .could not mse its. funds for any purposes outside those specified in the Trades' Union Act of 1876.' The case was then carried to the Privy Council, and, ae reported today, the decision of the Court of Appeal has' been sustained.- The immediate cf : feet of this final" judgment will be that the financing, of the Labour members in Parliament will have to be done on new lines. . The chief value of. the case has been in the prominence which it gave W two highly important questions of the day, namely, the relation of trades unionism to Socialism, and the undesirablenesa of shackling the ' freedom of M.P.'s by of party pledges. . ■ "Against,.the Society it was urged,:in the hearing before Me. Justice Neville, that the levy for the payment of pledged Labour representatives in Parliament was ■''not. in.% interests of- members of the Society, but for the benefit of the Parliapdentary Labour party, whose policy was_ foreign to the general purposes of the. Society, as defined by its originalvcoh-" stitutiph, and whose goal was, avowedly, Sbcialism. , ' The Judge held, however, thai a teadee union was entitled to spend money -for the 1 purpose of "influencing legislation," and waaqaite within its rights if it decided that its interests would be served by financing M.P.'s pledfjed to any party: "The trades unions, if they please, are at liberty just as much to affiliate themselves and to support the Socialist party as they would be to affiliate to and suppdrtj if they pleased,, either' the Unionist party or tho Liberal party.", In delivering the judgment of the Court'of Appeal the Master of; the :Rolls.observed that a trades union can not "add to its objects something wholly distinct from the objects contemplated by the Trades Union Act": "Trades unions comprise ■ members of every shade of political opinion, , and I cannot think it is the intention of the legislature that it should be competent to a majority of the members to compol a minority to support by their votes, still less by their subscriptions, political opinions which they may abhor. . . .It seems tome extravagant to suppose that the immunities and exceptions conferred by the Act can have beon intendedto apply to any busi. ness which a trades union might add to what I may call strictly trades union purposes." - Wo may note in passing from this point that the Privy Councils confirmation of the Court of Appeal's restriction of the area of trades union activity ought to raise in this country the question we disoußscd on A_uguet.2e -last,..: .namely, the oxtent to which trades unions can go outside their constitutional charter without imperilling thoir registration. '■'■;. The larger issue of the two which arc raißodby, the. case iindor. notice-.'lβ. not a new ono. - Jiist at present, when the curtain in foiling ou a Parliamentary bcs-

sion_ in which "party loyalty" has : been strained very hard by the Government, and whon the public car. almost sec the inward struggles of somo of tho Government b supportcrsas they exalt the claims of tho party" over tho appeals of conscience, it may be useful to lay some stress upon the Privy Council's decision that, to quote Loed Shaw, "the 1 imposing of conditions on a member of the House of Commons is contrary to■. public policy." It was admitted by Mu. Justice Neville that "a member of Parliament cannot bind himself either legally or morally by any pledge" to a party:: "Hβ may no doubt properly declare himself a member or, or a supporter of, a particular party, and having done bo, no doubt the general opinion would be that he is bound to give a fair and reasonable, support to that party, and in minor matters to subordinate, his own particular views to those of the majority with whom lie has elected to'act. At the same time ... every member of Parliamont owes a higher allegiance than any allegiance to party. Primarily,, he is bound to follow the dictates of his conscience, and to lend his voice and vote only to such measures as he believes to be in the best interests of his country." It was contended before the Privy Councilthat "the vice of the system tof shackled _M.P.'s], was that these men , were during the whole of their political life in a state of possible conflict between interest and duty," and that "the tendency of this bargain was to coerce or, seduce or corruptly affect the minds of the men making it in a matter concerning the good, of ,the community; on that ground it was illegal, and. contravened the Constitution by which.every peer and member"of.the House of Commons: was bound to render a service which was unbiasedj uncoerced, incorrupt, to his King and country." We. are not sohopeful as to believe that those mombers; in our own Parliament who, whilq they haVe begun to obey; their conscience, aro still chiefly obedient to tho Pkijie MiNiSTEn, will bo much impressed by any assurances that blind "party loyalty" is contrary to public policy. Yet there is some, prpspect: that next year they will-'bo' more ready to accept those assurances. Tho subject is one to which they can.with much profit to themselves give some; serious thought. ■ : . .