The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1910. M.P.'S AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 739, 11 February 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1910. M.P.'S AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.

It was hot to be expected that the:| BTitisltt; Labour ■ Congiess"'sitting at Nawpoiti ■ tkis 'week. would -fail: to' .protest .against" the Privy Co'u'noiYß decision against fhe ciaim of/'the : trades : uniohs to; : use'-'their funds for. the.paymeni oi membe'Tß oi. Pa.THa.ment -wko,' axe pvepiTed fo ' sign'-:;the 'labour.: party's ' ; pledge. There is:one aspect.of the decisibnrwhi.ch',we.have diseußsed.on.several occasions ;in :the.past—to' which,: as it; is hot'without ..its ' interest'.to : this' country',;we.may give a.little' par;, ticuiar attention. .The essence of the invalidity: of; the• ;• trades;unions' : claim: was .-the fact; that .'the::payment; of M.P. ; s out of'union' funds was not one of the purposes' of union: incorporation under the 'Act. This judgment:.was based not' only on purely legal grounds, but also'on the ground of ['public policy,!' and; in : establishing:' their'. judgment .Lord James of Hereford:and Lord Shaw —the;' other members, ; of 'the, Court withheld ; discussion ; of the pointstood upon certain principles '.that I should.'; apply: ; :wherever -there - is constitutional: government. •'.; Loed , James- construed the rule i of; the itfade-union -directly concernedT- 1 namely,' that! "all candidates .shall :sign:and 'accept;the, conditions of the Labour, party and be : subject to their .'Whip'.'-'-as •; "meaning / thatthe member undertakes to -forgo his own •judgment, and to vote in .Parliament ; in' ; accordance'■ with'.the-.opinions of some.; person' or persons.' acting : , oh behalf :of the.Labbur .party! And such vote," he pointed out, "would , have,; to she'. given..'; in !■ res'pect; of all matterai-ihcludihg;those pf, : .a. most; general .'■ character-^such 1 .: as,: confidence' in a Ministry or the policy of a Budget--matters unconnected /di.rectly at least, with;the' interests of labour." Therefore he was' of;opinion that the application of money 1 to the ; . iriaihtonance of a member '' whose action is so;regulated;:is not within the powers of; a trade-union.;.; :•;' ..;;Lpßp. Shawi went very extensively into: the broad constitutional, question'/. 'He'put "the,testing instance" thus': ,-',:":'■•.:.;' ; - : ''' '•' : ,; • '■'.': ■';'-

Should,the view '[of'a member paid-on his pledge to the. Party Whip] as to'right and wrong on-a publio issue as to the true line of service to the realm, as to the real interests of.:■ the. constituency which has. elected.; him V.or, even, of-the society which pays him, differ, from the decision of'the Parliamentary party and the maintenance by.iit of his-policy,- he, has;come under,.a contract : :to place.his vote.:and action into subjection not to his own con-victions,-but to. their decisions. .;"'.:.';.".'

This subjectipiij he held, was not "compatible,' either with the ■ spirit of;; pur .'Parliamentary, Constitution or with that; independence;'and freedom which' have'hitherto .'been held, to .be.at;the basis of representative; government in; the ...United Kingdom. '■'■■■■. It might '-not'.-appear'.'at' first sight that this judgment covers the .case'.::of membeb who j pledge, their .votes.'to a ; party,, not-in 'consideration of the manner of their, payment. But the; principle governing.; Lord Shaw's ruling .does deny'the. propriety -of, any 'such, general pledge. The principle that a member of Parliament; shall .'always vote; according, to, his"'conscience'' is,' the Lbrd.Justice showed, "deeply "embedded Lin tiie law. of England." -Oh the subject of. the predominating 'consideration Coke remarks: "And' it is to be observed, though: one be chosen for. one particular, county .or; borough,'; yet when he is returned; and sits in' Parliament ho serveth for the whole- realm."".'■■■• Blaokstone and Locke, as Loed Shaw showed; have also laid down this principle: ■'■ The fundamental idea of freedoid of 'election .has stood upon/the ,-Statute-Bbok-for many centuries. .But. '-all this' would have been a mockery if; after purity and freedom had been enjoined, amongst electors and constituencies,; the so elected was not himself to be in the possession of his freedom in vote, advice and actiom" ■■>■■ -' N '. ; "- In the New. Zealand Parliament; and in the Parliaments of most .of ;.the,.British colonies,; there' has al : ways been an imperfect-,understand-ing of the injuriousness of the idea that men may go further than affirm a' customary agreement with the policy; and actions : of any particular party. When a candidate pledges himself to support any particular doctrine—say the doctrine ,of the freehold—he is bound to act in accordance .with that pledge when he is returned, for it is to be presumed; that in giving his pledge l he was acting according -his conscience. To.vote against the. freehold would be, not to affirm his freedom, but' to commit an offence against public policy in' voting against his conscience. It may be urged, of •; course; that if, by voting, as ordered by his conscience and-by his duty to those who elected him, ho may assist in-turning'out a Government with which -he is generally in sympathy, it is right _that he. should choose what he considers tho lesser of,two evils. .But his conscience, • and the terms of his election, should riot suffer violence from any such consideration. Still less is

there any defence for the action of a member of Parliament who', out of respect for or out of a sense of. obligation to/any party; votes against his conscience when nothing but the fate of the immediate question is at stake. During last session wo had many examples of this extraordinary, obliviousness to the canons of political morality. On questions that would in'no way affect the fate of the Government, wo saw members voting plainly against their .consciences and against common justice-rather than offend the Ministry. ■' . "Well, • you see I had ..to support the party," was a common enough explanation of many of the votes in the House last, session. • Wo aro aware'that it may seem to be a rather hopeless business to quote the fundamental doctrines' of Parliamentary government to some of our present-day politicians, but one need' not be- so' hopeless as to feel that no good at all can come of pointing out that it is independence and freedom, 'in Lord Shaw's words,',.which, "lie''at the basis, of. representative' government."