asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken to bring to the notice of the inhabitants of British West Africa the investigations for improving the yield of oil palms which have been carried out in the Netherlands East Indies?

Yes, Sir. Last year agricultural officers of Nigeria and the Gold Coast were sent to the East Indies to study and report upon the methods in use there. They have now returned, and are submitting their reports to the Governments of Nigeria and the Gold Coast, who are giving close attention to the problem of improving palmeries by planting better-yielding varieties and improving; methods of native extraction. Discussions in regard to the establishment of central mills are in progress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of repayment by the Colonial Office for Army expenditure in Iraq and Palestine in 1926–27?

The final accounts for 1926–7 have not yet been made up, but it is estimated that approximately £260,000 will be repayable to Army Votes, in respect of Army expenditure in Iraq and Palestine in 1926–27, of which £16,000 is in respect of Palestine.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proposal for federation in East Africa under the auspices of Kenya, he will state what was the number of European male settlers in Kenya and what was the number of persons employed by the Government in Kenya at the date of the Kenya census of 1921 and of 1926, respectively?

I do not know on what grounds the right hon. and gallant Member suggests that there is any proposal for federation in East Africa under the auspices of Kenya. The figures which I have for the 1926 census, in advance of the final Report, are not exactly comparable with the 1921 figures; but if "British in Government. service" may be taken to correspond with "European males in Government service," the particulars desired are as follow:

European male adults not in Government service, 3,763 in 1921, 4,403 in 1926, of whom 1,802 in 1921, and 2,199 in 1926, were settlers and farmers. In Government service, 973 in 1921, and 1,266 in 1926.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this question of federating the East African Crown Colonies is moving forward at the present time, and whether it is going to be a question of equality among the different States, or whether the headquarters will be in Kenya?

It would be premature to go into any details. The question is, naturally, one which has long been under consideration. It would certainly be on the basis of equality among the constituent elements of the federation, if any federation were considered desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any concessions have been or are to be granted for the extraction of salt or chemicals from the Dead Sea?

I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 26th April.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the draft Bill for workmen's compensation in the Malay States has been considered by his Department; and what decision has been come to regarding it?

The draft Bill is now under examination, and I am not at present able to say more than that I agree generally with the principles on which it has been framed, though in points of detail it will probably require some amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up this matter, which has been the subject of negotiation since 1924?

It will, of course, require discussion, as I have indicated, between the various parties.

Could the right hon. Gentleman have any sort of inquiry made in the various Crown Colonies as to which have Workmen's Compensation Acts and which have not, so as to bring them more or less on to the same footing?

The position differs very much between one Colony and another. Wherever the economic conditions are such as to make it desirable to introduce such legislation, I shall be glad to press for it if it does not already exist.

Why not Palestine, for instance?

I think that matter is under close consideration in Palestine, and is moving forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any drilling for oil has actually taken place in Iraq; if so, how many drills have been started; what depth has been penetrated; which districts have been drilled; and what have been the results?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am not in a position to give details of the operations of individual oil companies, or to add to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 16th of May last. As I then stated, the Turkish Petroleum Company did not start drilling operations until the 5th April last. In these circumstances, any statement as to the results obtained would be clearly premature.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman in possession of information as, to how many holes are being drilled?

No, Sir. There is no administrative reason why private companies operating in Iraq should keep me informed as to their operations.

Is it not the fact that one of the reasons why we take such an interest in the country, and spend so much money on it, is because we were told that there was a great oilfield there?

Is it not a fact that the company which is conducting these drilling operations is a subsidiary of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and are not the Government very largely interested in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

The Government have an interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has an interest in the Turkish Petroleum Company, but it is by no means a subsidiary company.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer, spoke of companies. Is there only one company drilling in Iraq, or are the Anglo-Persian and the International both drilling?

They are both drilling. The Anglo-Persian is drilling near Kharakan, in the old Baghdad vilayet, and the Turkish Petroleum Company are conducting their investigations in the old Mosul vilayet.

Is it not a fact that the British Government never made a better investment for the taxpayers of this country than when they invested this money in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will have copies of the Reports of the Ministry placed in the Library?

I have been asked to reply. A number of the Ministry's Reports which are presented to Parliament by Act of Command are already placed in the Library, and other Reports of general interest are sent to the Library by the Stationery Office on the Librarian's requisition. Members may obtain copies of any other Reports they require on application to the Stationery Office.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott) and other hon. Members—in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:

"(2) The expression 'lock-out' (without limiting the nature of its meaning) means a closing of a place of employment, or a suspension of work, or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of his employés in consequence of a dispute, done with a view to compelling his employés, or to aid another employer in compelling his employés to accept terms of employment"—

is out of place. It should come in after Sub-section (2). In regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and other hon. Members—in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:

"(2) In Section three of the Trade Union Act, 1913, and Section four of this Act, the expression 'trade union' shall include any company or association or body of employers, and the expression 'member of a trade union' shall include any person holding shares in any company or any member of an association or body of employers."—

it is not in order, as it stands, because it involves an amendment of the Companies Act, and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. If the references to "company" were left out, it would be in order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will move it in that form.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:

"(2) In Section three of the Trade Union Act, 1913, and Section four of this Act, the expression 'trade union' shall include any association or body of employers, and the expression member of a trade union' shall include any member of an association or body of employers."

This Amendment, in the first instance, was put on the Order Paper in the nature of an Instruction, but, when that point was submitted to Mr. Speaker, it was explained that the idea was to try to secure equality of treatment, as far as that can be secured in this Bill, between the employers' associations and the trade unions in so far as they engage in politics, and in so far as they use their funds for political purposes. We were constrained to seek to bring this about, first, because at the end of Clause 4, there is a new Sub-section which makes the position much more rigid than hitherto, as far as unregistered trade unions are concerned. We could not but feel that if the Government considered that the time had arrived when the procedure as far as unregistered trade unions are concerned should be made much more rigid over the administration of political funds, it should apply to any associations of employers engaged in political work.

There can be no doubt that there is on the part of many employers' associations much greater activity in regard to political action than many Members of this House would be prepared to admit. We very frequently come up against the activities of employers' associations when Measures dealing with the reduction in the hours of labour, or, say, Measures dealing with the Factory Laws, are under consideration, or are being promoted. We then find very considerable activity on the part of some of these associations of employers. The strange thing is that it is so difficult to get the information that ought to be at our disposal when we seek to deal with the matter.

During the earlier stages of the Debate, on Clause 4, a question was submitted to the Attorney-General on this point, and I want to quote the words that were used. The, Attorney-General said:

"I was asked whether two"—

I want the Committee to note the number—

"out of the 94 registered employers' trade unions have political funds."

Here is the Attorney-General's reply:

"I have made inquiries from the Registrar and I am told that that is accurate."—[OFEICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1927; col. 2044, Vol. 206.]

Out of 94 registered employers' trade unions two only have, or admit that they have, political funds. Many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House would, I think, be prepared to agree with us in saying that that number, "two," is absolutely ridiculous. From the mere fact that two have admitted that they have funds, we have to conclude that they, and they only, are actively participating in political work, just as the trade unions are doing. In the earlier proceedings, the Government took a very important step in seeking to apply part of Clause 1 to the employers of this country. They sought to place a lockout, in so far as any Government or any House of Commons can ever do so, in exactly the same position as a trade union action. We think it is equally important that the Government should accept this Amendment, or words similar to it, and place the employers, and especially employers' trade unions, in exactly the same position as they are trying to place registered and unregistered trade unions. In Sub-section (5) of Clause 4 of this Bill we have these words:

"(5) Section sixteen of the Trade Union Act, 1871 (which provides for the transmission to the Registrar of annual returns by registered trade unions), shall apply to every unregistered trade union so far as respects the receipts, funds, effects, expenditure, assets and liabilities of the political fund thereof."

We may be told that that is the position to-day so far as the employers are concerned, and that employers' associations which have political funds are registered in the returns of the Registrar-General. But I come back to this point, that we cannot be satisfied by being told that that is the position at present because we have to keep in mind the fact that only two out of 94 employers' associations have openly acknowledged that they are engaging in political work. We want them not only to be registered but compelled to submit their returns for audit. If the machinery is to be tightened up against trade unions, if the individual member of a trade union is supposed to be so much the concern of the Government in Clause 4, then the Bill should apply equally to individual shareholders and individual members of any employer's association. I go so far as to say that before the fund of any company can be used for political purposes the shareholding members ought to have applied to them, with the same stringency as in the case of trade unions, the regulations as to voting by ballot, which are laid down under the Act of 1913, and will have to be continued under these new proposals.

Hon. Members opposite may not be aware that in the past some of the older trade unions have invested very considerable sums as shareholders in some of the gigantic trading concerns of the country. I could give the names of trade unions which, not many years ago, had considerable sums of money invested in some of the firms on the Tyneside. Is it suggested that before these firms used all their influence and participated in an agitation against some political proposal that the individual shareholders and the shareholding trade unions were consulted; is it suggested that a ballot vote was taken and that by a decision of the majority of the shareholders they were entitled to participate in that particular form of political agitation? Notwithstanding the very close interest one has taken in these matters I have never heard of a shareholding company being balloted, or the individual members of an employer's association being balloted, before a certain action was taken against some political Measure which Parliament was being asked to pass.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the name of the firms on the Tyneside?

I do not object to giving the name. The firm I was referring to is the old n of Armstrong 'Whitworth and Company.

On a point of Order. I thought you, Mr. Hope, had excluded from this discussion the question of companies. I am only asking for information, as it will be difficult for me, in reply, to know whether I may or may not embark on the question of the position of companies.

I did not feel called upon to stop the right hon. Gentleman in his argument, but under the Rules of the House the Amendment was not in order when it referred to companies.

I am prepared to accept your ruling; I was only using them as an illustration, and was not making them part of a definite and prolonged argument. I hope I have not transgressed your ruling in giving' the name of the firm in a reply to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). If what I have described has existed, and will continue to exist under this Bill after it becomes law, we on this side are entitled to demand fair play; and I hope hon. Members opposite will be equally anxious to see that fair play is done. If employers' associations—I will say nothing more about companies—are to be permitted to carry on great agitations against legislation which may affect their interests, legislation affecting hours and the safety of the lives of considerable numbers of their employés, then we are entitled to ask that employers' associations which engage in political work and trade unions which engage in political work shall be placed on exactly the same footing. There should be neither preferential or deferential treatment. Unless that is done it will create the very bad impression that we are making it more stringent for unregistered trade unions and leaving the employers' associations to go their own sweet way without being compelled to make any return to the Registrar-General.

The right hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, based it on the ground that he said employers' associations and trade unions, by which he meant workmen's trade unions, should be placed on exactly the same footing. I accept that view entirely. It is because they are already on the same footing and because the only effect of the Amendment would be to put them on a different footing, that the Government is unable to accept the Amendment. It is necessary to explain to the Committee what the position is. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, provision is made for what is popularly called "contracting in" instead of "contracting out" for the political fund, and provision is also made by Sub-section (6) that all trade unions, whether registered or unregistered, shall make a return of their political fund balance-sheet to the Registrar of Trade Unions. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that Sub-section applied only to workmen's trade unions, for he said that the law had been made more stringent with regard to these unregistered trade unions. Of course, that is a complete misconception. Clause 4 of the Bill applies to every trade union, whether it be a trade union of workmen or a trade union of employers. That is made abundantly clear by reason of the fact that this Bill, by virtue of the Clause which we are now discussing, is to be read as one with the previous Trade Union Acts, including the Act of 1913. Section 2 of the Act of 1913 defines what is a trade union. It says:

"The expression 'trade union' for the purpose of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, and this Act, means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects."

Statutory objects are defined as being those set out in Section 16 of the 1876 Act as consisting of "the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or for the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business." Therefore, it is, of course, clear beyond argument that the expression "trade unions" applies under the 1913 Act and——

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the definition he has read would not bring in the Federation of British Industries?

I cannot possibly answer as to a particular body, because I do not know what its objects are. If the objects of the Federation of British Industries are "the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters or between masters and masters, or the imposition of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business," then it is a trade union. If those are not its objects it is not a trade union. Similarly, any association of workmen, unless its objects come within Section 16 of the 1876 Act, is not a trade union.

Would the learned Attorney-General inform us whether the Co-operative Congress is a trade union? That is an association of employers?

Again I have to give the same answer, that without knowing exactly what the objects of that particular association are, I cannot reply to the question. If I did know them, I should hesitate to answer offhand in the House, because my answer might be misleading. The only answer possible is that if the objects are those which are stated in Section 16 of the 1876 Act, then clearly it is a trade union, and if those are not the objects then it is not a trade union, whether it be an association of workmen or of masters. There is no difference between the two. In order to bring the association within the provisions of Clause 4 of this Bill or the provisions of the 1913 Act, or the earlier Act, it has to be an association whose objects are some at least of those set out in Section 16 of the Act of 1876.

The right hon. Gentleman gave us 94 registered employers' trade unions and only two which had political funds. Will the other 92 be permitted to do political work, in view of the fact that no trade union of workmen will now be able to do political work of any kind except under the stringency of the provisions of this Bill?

The other 92 cannot now, and will not in future, be able to apply their funds to the political objects which are defined in the Act of 1913 without taking the steps which are laid down in the Act of 1913. They cannot do it now and they will not be able to do it after this Bill has become law. No registered trade union can apply its funds for political objects without complying with the statutory provisions of the Act of 1913. That has been the law since 1913 and it will remain the law after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. The Bill makes no difference at all in that respect. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the 94 registered employers' associations. All those 94 are within the language of the Act of 1871, and have therefore to make a full return of their expenditure on all their objects as is laid down in Section 16, I think, of the Act of 1871, and no doubt it is the fact—I have not checked it, because I did not know the question would be raised—that all these employers' trade unions make the returns which the Act calls for, and that none of them, except the two of which I have got particulars, spends any money on political objects. That is so far as registered trade unions are concerned.

I come now to unregistered trade unions. Whether they be trade unions of employers or of workmen, they cannot at this moment legally apply any of their funds to political objects unless they have taken the ballot which is prescribed by the Act of 1913. The only difference in the future will be this—that whereas at present the unregistered trade union, whether of workmen or of employers, need not make any return of any of its expenditure or receipts, because it is only registered trade unions which come within the Section of the Act of 1871, when this Bill becomes law all unregistered trade unions, whether of employers or of workmen, which have a political fund, will have to make a return to the Registrar of the receipts and expenditure of that fund. That will apply just as much to employers' trade unions as it does to workmen's trade unions. The only effect of the Amendment proposed would be to insist that associations of employers which were not trade unions, that is to say which had not any of the statutory objects which constitute a trade union, should be put under the obligation which applies only to trade unions. That would be just as unreasonable as it would be, for instance, to insist that associations of workmen which are not trade unions, or co-operative societies, let us say, or other bodies which are not trade unions, should be compelled to make a return of expenditure for political purposes.

That is not the law. This is a Bill which is dealing with trade unions and trade unions only, and it does not purport to extend the obligations of any body, of any kind, which is not a trade union. Any body which is a trade union, either of employers or workmen, is within the provisions of Clause 4 of this Bill without the Amendment. Any body of persons, either employers or workmen, which is not a trade union, or any single employer or workman, is not, I should have thought, within the scope of the Bill, and at any rate is not within anything with which, this Clause deals. It would be, in my view, and in the view of the Government, a wholly unreasonable and unfair proposition that one particular set of persons, namely, associations of employers should be compelled to accept this obligation when no corresponding obligation is being imposed on any other class of the community. As far as trade unions are concerned, whatever they consist of and whoever they consist of, they come within the Clause already and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not necessary and there can be in my submission no justification for bringing within the Clause one particular class of the community when it does not extend to any other.

After listening to the Attorney-General we have now more reason than ever to suspect everything in this Measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of not placing one section of the community, namely, employers in a worse position than the rest of the community; and yet throughout the discussions on this Bill he has been endeavouring to put the trade unions in a worse position than any other section of the community. Once or twice this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman referred to co-operative societies as though those bodies, which already take part in political work, did not make a return to their members at the present time. Certainly the societies which we know make returns periodically of the amount of money expended on the political work of the organisation and of how it has been expended. I do not wish to try to get round the ruling of the Chair, but, with regard to companies, I suggest that companies are able to contribute to the political work of many of the federations, confederations and associations of employers with which they are concerned. Is it the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Confederation of Employers whose office is within a stone's throw of this building and with which many industries are concerned is not dealing with money subscribed by the shareholders to the companies and then subscribed by the companies to the confederation?

I think it is in order to refer to companies if they are employers, but it is not in order to refer to companies in their relations to their own shareholders. Of course, in relation to their own employés they are employers as much as anybody else.

I quite accept that ruling, but I suggest respectfully that when these companies are spending the money of their shareholders in subscribing it to various federations and confederations of employers, we are entitled to deal with the matter here. In the case of the large chemical, engineering, shipbuilding and other companies, which are concerned with these confederations, it is the money of the shareholders which is subscribed to those institutions and is then expended upon political objects. I suggest that the Government are in the position of not being able to deal with those particular concerns. They can only deal with the trade unions, and it is only the trade unions which they are endeavouring to "crib, cabin and confine" by this Measure. With regard to employers' associations, all we have is the statement as to the wide definition of a trade union. Those of us who have had to deal with employers' associations already know that definition quite clearly, hut we are convinced that the Government have no intention of placing upon the employers' associations the same limitations as they are placing upon the workmen with regard to political activity.

I wonder if the Government dare tackle the brewers who have what is, I suppose, the finest political organisation to be found in this country—whose method of ticketing and docketing everybody about whom they wish to know anything is a masterpiece in the art of gaining information which they are able to use at any moment. In this Measure and under this particular definition the brewers will go scot free. There is nothing to compel them to give a return showing how they expend the many thousands of pounds devoted by them to political work. The Engineering Employers' Federation, probably, do not run a single Parliamentary candidate; the Civil Engineering Employers' Federation may not run one of its members as a candidate, but they expend considerable sums of money with regard to Measures which are being promoted, with regard to great public works and with regard to Bills which are passing through this House. Will these bodies be compelled to return the amounts which they expend upon political effort. One may also ask whether this proposal will apply to the employers in the cotton trade, who may not finance candidates for this House, but who, nevertheless, expend considerable money upon political effort in various ways—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]——either in the promotion or prevention of a Factories Bill, for instance. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not politics!"] Probably we may have a definition from some of the employers in this House as to what they consider to be politics. A Factories Bill is a political question to us and it is the employers who have made such Measures matters of party politics. It is the action taken by employers that has forced us to set up a party in order that we may defend the people. Last year the Prime Minister, or someone on his behalf, met the Confederation of Employers with regard to this Bill, when they urged upon him that it would not have been wise to proceed with it during the autumn, had that been the intention. There was expenditure upon political effort. The Federation of British Industries met the Government and urged the Government not to proceed with the Factories Bill. There again was political expenditure.

Did it cost anything?

Did it cost anything? Consider the number of meetings held. My reply to the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) is that it must have cost a considerable amount of money. They had many meetings, and went through the Measure line by line and Clause by Clause. They expended a considerable amount of money, I have no doubt, upon legal expenses. They expended money on the deputations which were brought to London to meet the Government, and if they decide to tackle the work in that form rather than be at the expense of particular candidates for the House of Commons, surely that is political expenditure just as much as paying the expense of a candidate, or financing him, or finding him his salary when in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Much worse!"] And much worse, I have no doubt. That applies not only to those two organisations, but to many other federations. I wonder if the expenditure of employers' federations in order to obtain concessions either in this country or in some other parts of the world that are mandated to us, or held by us, is to be considered political expenditure? Yet there is nothing in this Bill that will demand from those people a return showing the amount they expend on that work.

The whole Bill is framed in a vicious spirit, in order to make it as difficult as possible for the trade unions to voice their opinions in this House by their direct representatives. I am not at all sorry that the Government have refused this Amendment. I am not concerned—I say it very plainly—with the Government making this into a better Measure. I am afraid it could not be made into a Measure which, at any rate, is fair to those people who are engaged in the work-a-day life of this country, and, therefore, I am not at all sorry that the Government have refused to accept this Amendment.

This Amendment arises from rather a confused issue. It raises a problem which should not be raised at this particular point. It is based upon a distinction between employers and workers. I think the right hon. Gentleman the learned Attorney-General was quite right. There is not a distinction at all. The basis of the discussion at this stage must be as to what is a trade union, and whether a trade union is to perform its function in a certain way. It is not a distinction based upon employers and workers. Does a certain body fall within the definition of the Section or does it not? That rules out the whole issue as between employers and employed, and that is the only position that can be taken up here. That is not to say there is not a point of substance in the Amendment itself, at the right moment, whether there are bodies of employers, or even of workmen, that are able to use their funds for political purposes without coming within the scope of the Section of the Act of 1876. That may be true, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given an instance. The Brewers' Association certainly is able to, and it does not come within the scope of the Act of 1876. It may not have Statutory objects which constitute that body a trade union, but, still, it does influence, and seeks to influence, the political complexion of this House. It might be said that it is perfectly entitled to do it at the moment, but if this Amendment is to do any good, it should be an Amendment of the definition of the Act of 1876, and bodies such as these, which use their funds for political objects, should be brought within the scope of the Trade Union Act and make returns of their funds. But at this stage it is unfortunate that this Amendment should make a distinction which is not necessary at all. It merely creates a feeling, which should not be created in this Clause, of a distinction which is unfortunate, and has not been pressed in any way, between employers and employed. Make the basis a trade union basis, but see that all those other bodies are brought within the scope of the Trade Union Act.

One of my hon. Friends last week referred to a circular issued by the Coalowners' Association of Durham and Northumberland, who have taken exception to the interpretation that the owners made a political levy upon their constituent organisations. Whatever may happen in the future, great organisations of employers certainly have been using their funds for political purposes. We would not have known of it as opponents politically except that the circular, by ways of which I know not, became public. It was sent out by the Secretary of the Coalowners' Association, saving that the Association for the two counties, or one county, at any rate, had decided that they were going to make a voluntary levy of 2s. per 1,000 tons output, taking the output of the year 1920. That levy was made, and they contributed thousands of pounds towards the political organisation for fighting the county council election. They made no bones whatever about this matter. They said, "We have got to take part in this election fight." They made the levy, as I say, and they got thousands of pounds together. The Secretary of the Coal-owners' Association, I understand, now says that that was a voluntary levy, but what the Secretary of the Association cannot say is that the individual shareholders were asked whether they would agree to that contribution or not.

Is the learned Attorney-General going to assure us that in the future, when a decision like this is taken by an employers' organisation to use money belonging to the various companies—and I think that is a challenge in the future—these organisations are to take a ballot of their members and be registered in the proper way as are the unions? I do not think that is clear at all. It has not been clear in the past. It does not seem to us on this side of the Committee that there is any hope that that will be enforced in the future, but what is certain is that great organisations on the employers' side will continue to use their funds without any ballot or any reference to their individual shareholders at all. Although the Secretary of that organisation has challenged the statement that it is a levy, the fact remains that it was not a voluntary contribution made by the individual shareholders. It was simply taken out of the funds of the companies for their own particular purpose. I think hon. Members on the other side have, at the back of their minds, one standard for employers' organisations and another standard for workers' organisations. I think they resent the subjecting of employers' organisations to the same rigid rules and legal decisions as those to which the workers' organisations have to be subjected. The fact of the matter is that the whole of the legislation of the last century is based upon the assumption that a trade union is a thing which should be obliterated, that it is antagonistic to trade, instead of being as it really is, absolutely essential to every industry where a trade union is strong. On the other side, I think employers would say, if they were outside this House, that there are great commercial and industrial organisations which it would be absolutely impossible to carry on if it were not for the representative work of the trade union official. That is the fact to-day, but at the beginning of the 19th century it was not accepted. We have only to go back to some very humane people, writers like Charles Reade, Charlotte Bronte and others, to show that in the early part of the 19th Century even the most advanced and broad-minded persons treated trade unions as outcast organisations from the industrial and commercial side.

The real truth of the matter is that this Clause, like the whole Bill, is founded upon the same spirit—the spirit of destruction of the effective negotiating power of trade union organisation. That may be good, or it may be ill. I think it is very ill for industry and commerce in this country, but, if it is to be there, at any rate let the whole spirit of sport, about which we boast, manifest itself in this House, and put the employers in the same position as the workers. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will go to a Division, and that we shall continue to fight this Clause from that point of view particularly, until such time as the Government have made up their minds that employers' organisations are to be treated the same as workers' organisations, not merely in theory but, in fact expressed in the Bill we are discussing.

I think this discussion has revealed what most of us on these benches know very clearly, that a great deal of the argument in connection with this Bill is founded upon a theoretical equality which, by the very nature of the case, cannot have much substance. It is perfectly clear to everybody at least in the trade union movement, that employers have an opportunity to indulge in forms of association that are not open to the workers. It is the difference of the immense economic advantage which they enjoy, and it does not seem possible to find any words in any Act of Parliament which can entirely smooth out that immense advantage which their superior economic position gives them. I must confess that I cannot see anything in the reply of the Attorney-General to suggest any objection, or give any reasonable objection to the inclusion of these words with the idea of imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or industry that can be indulged in by employers in a different way, by the expenditure of enormous sums of money for which, apparently, under this Bill they will not be asked to give any account at all. Some of us have a very clear recollection of the result of the White Lead Convention. I would like to know whether, to give them as a typical illustration, the White Lead Manufacturers' Association and the Zinc Manufacturers' Association will come under the terms of this Bill? That fight, it is well known, involved the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds in propaganda work to try to defeat the White Lead Convention.

I was in Geneva when the fight was at its height, and I know that they spent money not only here, but abroad, to try to defeat the White Lead Convention; yet look at the difference between the point of view of the trade unions on the one side and that of the employers' associations on the other. There was the question of the degree to which white lead was to be discontinued as the prevailing medium in white paint, and that involved a diminution of profits in the manufacture of white paint, but for what were the workers fighting? They were righting for the actual preservation of the lives of those who were being poisoned by the white lead. There is no question about the power of that association and other employers' associations to spend money to defeat, or to endeavour to defeat, on the floor of the House of Commons, these Measures for the safety of life and the well being of the workers, so that this theoretical equality promised by the Attorney-General under the Bill leaves us absolutely cold. We do not believe there is any practical comparison possible between the embargo that is to be placed on the trade unions and the embargo that is to be placed on the employers' organisations in regard to the disposal of their funds.

I understand from the Chairman that we are not entitled to refer to shareholders, and that is another illustration of inequality under this Bill, because what are our members but our shareholders? They stand towards our annual conferences and our governing bodies precisely in the same relation financially as shareholders stand towards their boards of directors or the annual meetings of their companies, and we believe it to be true that there is an increasing minority of shareholders in a number of these companies who would like to have a good deal more voice in deciding how money should be spent when it comes to a question of helping to develop reasonable standards of life on behalf of the workers who are their employés. Many of them would welcome the possibility of extending the scope of this Bill in order that limited liability companies might be included and that shareholders might have a chance of being balloted as to the direction in which funds should be expended by the companies to which they have handed over their capital. We are not, however, permitted to bring limited liability companies under the Bill, and if you take limited companies out, there is not much left.

I must point out that hon. Members may discuss companies in their relations as employers, but that their internal affairs are regulated under the Companies Act.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Hope. You cannot touch a company's funds through the mere association of employers. It goes on its cheerful way spending its money on political objects entirely free from the embargoes that are placed on trade unions by this Bill. Therefore, although we cannot, in view of what the Attorney-General has stated, expect the Government to accept it, this Clause illustrates quite clearly once more the pretence of equality under this Bill, and it will become more and more apparent, as the Bill becomes better known in the country, that this profession of friendship on the part of the Conservative party for the working men and women of this country is simply a hollow sham.

When the Attorney-General was speaking on 25th May, he referred to the Act of 1913 and the definition there of a trade union. To-day he has laid emphasis on Section 16 of the Act of 1876, and I want to ask him whether there is some difference to be drawn between the two. I notice that in the Act of 1913, in the definition of a trade union, are included the words:

"Provided that any combination which is for the time being registered as a trade union shall be deemed to be a trade union as defined by this Act so long as it continues to be so registered."

In reply to certain suggestions made in different parts of the House, the right hon. Gentleman stated that co-operative societies, or the Federation of British Industries, or other similar organisations, if they were trade unions, would come under this Bill. What I want to ask is whether, if they are not registered, they would come under the Bill?

Certainly. The question of registration or non-registration makes no difference. The only question is: Are they within the definition of Section 2 of the Act of 1913? There is no difference between what I said to-day and what I said on the previous occasion. The 1913 Act defines a trade union as a combination the principal objects of which are "statutory objects." "Statutory objects" are defined as being the objects mentioned in Section 16 of the Act of 1876, which I read out.

On whom would fall the onus of making a decision whether or not a particular organisation came under the Act? Would a case have to be decided by the Law Courts?

If any body committed what would be thought to be a breach of the Act, it would have to be decided on a prosecution whether or not it was a trade union.

Does it not follow that those organisations that have been referred to may continue doing what they are doing until some steps are taken to bring an action against them in the Courts?

This Bill makes no difference at all as to what, is or is not a trade union. The only difference that this Bill makes is that it insists on an unregistered trade union making a return.

I gather that the Government are not prepared to accept the principle upon which the political Clause of this Bill is really based. The argument behind the contracting-in Clause is that no man should be compelled to pay money towards a political party unless he wishes to do so. There are certain organisations in existence, like the Federation of British Industries and the Licensed Victuallers' Association, which extract money from people against their will and use it for political purposes, and the people concerned have no means of avoiding the payment of that money. Let me take the Federation of British Industries first. That is a combination of firms and employers maintained in the main by grants from limited liability companies, some of which grant them £100 and some £1,000. I might be a shareholder in a limited liability company, the board of which decides to make a grant of £1,000 to the Federation of British Industries, and does so. The Federation may and does use that money for political work entirely contrary to my political views. It is a well known fact that the Federation of British Industries is very largely an organisation which works for the interests of the Conservative party. Perhaps I ought to put it the other way about, and to say that the Conservative party works for the interests of the Federation of British Industries, but Hon. Members opposite can have it whichever way they like. The result is that money which partly belongs to me as a, shareholder in a company is being used without my consent—indeed, to my great annoyance—for political purposes with which I do not agree.

That has to do with the Companies Act, and has nothing to do with this Bill.

I thought the object of this Amendment was to bring such a body as the Federation of British Industries within the definition of a trade union. Once we had got that organisation within that definition, all the various Clauses in this Bill would apply to that organisation, and, that being so, the one Clause dealing with a political levy would also apply to it. Therefore, if we could get this Amendment accepted, we should be doing something to protect the interests of the shareholder who, against his will, has his money applied for political purposes by the Federation of British Industries, and I submit that I am in order in that way in discussing that Federation.

The hon. Member is in order in discussing the Federation of British Industries, but the individual shareholder of a company which belongs to that Federation is another matter, because his rights are defined under the Companies Act. An individual employer contributing to an employers' federation would be a member of a trade union if the federation itself were a union or were made so by this Bill.

I brought that point out, because I thought it was common knowledge that it is the only way in which the funds of the Federation of British Industries are obtained, and it seems to me to be a legitimate grievance which I am entitled to discuss on this Clause. There is another organisation which carries on very obvious political work, and that is the Licensed Victuallers' Association. No man can have been a candidate for Parliament without having had the fact brought to his notice that the Licensed Victuallers' Association does exist, because no election ever takes place without this organisation spending a great deal of money in sending round circulars and literature to Parliamentary candidates in an endeavour to exert political influence. The money obtained for work of this kind is derived mainly from the pockets of the shareholders in brewery companies.

I do not know whether it is an inconceivable proposition, but I would suggest that it is just conceivable that a member of the Labour party, a Socialist, might hold shares in a brewery company It seems wildly improbable, I agree, but I am taking a wild hypothesis and stating my case on it. That being so, it might be that that brewery company would make a considerable contribution to the funds of the Licensed Victuallers Association. The money so contributed would be used for political purposes entirely contrary to the wishes of the individual shareholder, who would have no redress except perhaps to sell his shares, and it might be that that would not be a convenient course to take at the moment It seems to me that if this Bill were seriously intended by the Government to give equality to all classes of the community, so far as the right to control the expenditure of money which belongs to them is concerned, they ought so to amend the Clause as to protect the rights of the individual shareholder in a company just as much——

The hon. Member is reverting to the Companies Acts.

In that case I will not pursue the point. Although something of what I have said has been out of order, I hope a good deal of it has been in order, and I think I have said enough to show that there really is a strong case in favour of the Government accepting this Amendment if they really mean to see fair play for all sections of the community; and the fact that they are not prepared to accept it is only one more proof of the partisan and class character of the Bill.

I was very much interested in the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). He painted in sentimental terms the anguish of the wretched shareholder who found that his hard-earned money was being used for some political purpose of which he did not approve. That was a particularly interesting argument from an hon. Member on the Labour benches, because during the discussion of Clause 4 of the Bill I gathered that his party took a completely different view, and that the member of a trade union who objected to his money being used for political purposes of which he did not approve was, I think they said, a Judas, a blackleg, and a most undesirable person in every way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I will not run the risk of following the hon. Member out of order, however, because I really got up to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they might very well drop this Amendment. If it had been left in its original form, it would have been perfectly obvious that any political levy on members of a co-operative society would have been subject to all the restrictions which the Bill proposes to apply to trade unions. You, Mr. Chairman, have kindly saved the party opposite from putting forward an Amendment of that sort; but what is left is also extremely dangerous from the point of view of hon. Members opposite. Although, Mr. Chairman, you hive ruled out the question of dealing with co-operative societies as individual societies being subject to these restrictions, I very much doubt whether, if this Amendment goes through in its truncated form, it will not be necessary for the Co-operative Congress, which has just taken a very remarkable step, to ballot all the individual co-operative members and that all members must be compelled to contract in before the party opposite can use for their own selfish purposes the funds of a co-operative society.

After the ruling which has been given, the likelihood of the funds of co-operative societies being used for a purpose for which the hon. Member does not desire to see them used can be left for discussion on some subsequent occasion, when I am quite sure the party opposite will find means, if they have not already found means, of bringing in the co-operative movement——

It will be done on the Report stage.

We are now informed that it will be done on the Report stage. For the present, I will content myself with points that can be raised upon this particular Amendment. I want to develop a little further the argument that has been put forward respecting the Licensed Victuallers Association. I have been making a study of the influence that the trade—the trade of all trades—has recently had upon politics, particularly politics in which hon. Members opposite are most interested. I have discovered, for example, from the "Morning Advertiser," which presents the point of view of the trade, that it is not only on political issues in which the trade may be thought to have an economic interest that money which this association raises is spent, but that ordinary Tory propaganda is carried on by the association. Although they may be called hypothetical exceptions, I am none the less quite sure that there are a few licensed victuallers and others interested in the liquor trade who do not accept Tory politics holus bolus, and very much object to their money being spent upon propaganda of the type that the "Morning Advertiser" is pushing at the present moment; and therefore I would claim that a case has been made out for protecting those licensed victuallers who do not desire to have their money spent upon propaganda with which they do not agree, that is, if it is thought that protection is necessary for anyone.

I am still more interested in the case of the Federation of British industries. The activities of that body have gone a great deal further in influencing Governments and political parties in ways of which individual members of the Federation would not approve. I believe it will be true to say there are many members associated with firms in the Federation who see the necessity for the development of electricity by the State, who do not think that electrical enterprise can be left to individual effort, and who have pressed the point of view which to some extent was accepted in the Bill which the Government passed last year, when the electrical industry of the country was, for all practical purposes, nationalised. Some individuals and some firms would support that point of view; but there are others who, taking the pure Tory line, object to any advance in that direction. I wonder what would be the attitude of the former firms without, regard to the action which the Federation took on the Bill which the Liverpool Corporation proposed to introduce into this House some 12 or 18 months ago? When the Bill was first drafted it contained a Clause the aim of which was to municipalise the coal supply. The Federation of British Industries objected, and sent a special deputation to the Government Departments concerned to submit the Federation's point of view, and the result was the withdrawal of the Clause. Yet there are members of the Federation who realise, as the Samuel Coal Commission realised, that one of the things most required in connection with coal distribution, as has been shown to be necessary in connection with the distribution of electricity, is that there should be some advance in municipalisation and in nationalisation. I submit that a member of the Federation who disliked the attitude taken up in opposing that Liverpool Bill should be dealt with in exactly the same way as a trade unionist on this question of political funds—that is, if there is any case at all for the action which has been taken under this Bill with respect to trade unions.

During the last year or two the Federation have influenced politics very considerably in all manner of directions. They sent a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make suggestions regarding Income Tax and Super-Tax, and it would be no exaggeration to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making reductions in Super-Tax and in Income Tax, was very considerably influenced in his decision by the deputation. Yet I would say again that there are individual firms within that Federation who realise the folly of reducing Super-Tax and Income Tax when the burdens upon the working classes are so heavy that they are unable to buy commodities and through their inability to purchase are unable to set industry on its feet again. Their objections, however, would receive no attention. The Federation's policy has on the whole been a Tory policy, the money provided by the members being used for Tory purposes; and if there were any honesty with regard to this Clause the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment in order that the Clause should apply to federations of employers as well as to trade unions. In this Clause, as in every other Clause, the Government have been careful to safeguard the interests of employers, to leave untouched the political rights of employers it is only the rights of trade unionists that are to be curtailed. I hope that even at this late date the Government will be willing to reconsider their decision and to accept the Amendment.

Throughout this Debate we have been led to understand that the object of the Government was to secure fair play. The freedom of the working class was represented as being the basis of the Bill, and it was said the Government had no overt intention to injure the legitimate rights of trade unionists as such. The good, kind trade unionist who believed in paying for funeral benefits, for compensation allowances and for benefits for widows and orphans is to be left untouched; but as soon as he begins to show his teeth he is to be treated as an animal who ought to be kept under control, and the Zoo is not large enough to hold him. This Amendment is put forward with the object of placing employers in exactly the same position as employés. I come from a district where, in 1898, we formed a political combination of the trade unions and the Labour party—before the present Labour party came into existence. Immediately we found ourselves face to face with an alliance upon the other side. The Riverside Manufacturers' Association came into existence, the employers in every trade and industry began to organise, and a railway company, without consulting their shareholders—the directors decided, just like the wicked trade union dictators—decided that £10,000 should be placed at the disposal of the Municipal Alliance of West Ham. In that case, there was no ballot and no consultation with the individual shareholder or the individual member, but the money was found, and as a result of that combination they were able to defeat us and they got a majority on the local authority. Of course in was claimed that that was not political action, and that it was only done for the protection of property. What happened afterwards? When the facts came out and the people realised they had been wiped off the map in that way, the result was that out of 64 members of our town council, 64 are Socialists and Labour men and women.

Now we have before us this proposition: While it is to be made illegal for us to use our funds for political activities, there is nothing in this Clause that says that employers shall be placed under the same embargo, and they can do just what they like. The employers can vote sums of money to any political party, and I challenge the legal representative of this Bill to tell us what the great capitalist concerns of this country have voted towards the funds of his party. In such cases the shareholders are never asked whether they agree to vote the money; the directors have a free cheque and do as they like. [Interruption.] We understand the hon. Gentleman opposite who has interrupted me, and we know the kind of cheques he believes in. He believes in cheques on the banks of futurity. When there is an Electricity Bill before the House, we know the kind of cheques he believes in.

All this seems to me to be a long way from the proposition that every association of employers should be deemed to be a trade union.

But the employers are acting in the same way as trade unions, because they are endeavouring to keep up the price of their goods, and there is nothing in this Clause which says that the employers shall be treated in the same way as trade unions. Therefore, you are simply placing trade unions in a position of inferiority as compared with employers' organisations. All we are asking is that trade unions should be placed in the same position as employers. We are not afraid, whatever Clause you put in the Bill, because that will not stop us carrying on. We shall keep on keeping on, and we shall see the end of the Government before we have finished with the Bill.

The arguments which the hon. Member is using would be more appropriate on the Third Reading.

Seeing that I may not have an opportunity on the Third reading, I am now doing my best to improve each shining hour. I am only asking that the employer and the employed should be placed in exactly the same position. I have been reading the speeches of gentlemen who hope to be in Parliament after I am out of it. I wish them luck, and I hope it will keep fine for them. These gentlemen tell me that there is nothing in this Clause to prevent trade unions carrying on their usual work; in fact, they say that everything in the garden will be all right if we will only obey the dictates of the Government. As a matter of fact, we know where we are. If the Government will give us a square deal in regard to this Amendment, then we shall know where the employers are, because they cannot play the game both ways. After all, a lock-out is a lock-out. When we decide to have a strike, everybody knows how we do it, but what about a lock-out? The employers have various ways of acting in these matters, and they can victimise people to the fullest possible extent. As a matter of fact, they can do as they like, because it is their business. Can anyone imagine hon. Members opposite saying that employers are acting illegally when they close their factories down on account of had trade? That would not be called a lock-out and it would be held to have been done through lack of orders; but, if a body of workmen say, "We are not going to work any longer under the conditions imposed upon us," then they would be acting illegally.

I am not a lawyer, and the more I listen to them the less I am impressed. All we are asking hon. Members to do is to deal fairly with us. This Amendment asks that you shall provide that bodies of employers, acting in association, shall be treated exactly in the same way as bodies of workmen acting in association. No doubt the Attorney-General will move the Closure on us, and it is quite easy to do that. Probably, we shall move the Closure on the Attorney-General before many more months are over, and, when that time arrives, I shall want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether a body of workmen are not entitled to use the same economic influence as bodies of employers are now doing. What are the employers doing all over the country? They are shutting down their works and telling their workmen that trade is bad, that they cannot afford to pay the present rate of wages, and that reductions must take place. In this way employers are taking advantage of their economic power to force the workmen down to a lower standard of life. What about combinations of capitalists?

We have on the Order Paper a new Clause dealing with that point.

I am only advancing that argument as an illustration of how bodies of employers are combining against the interests of the community. The argument used against trade unions is that they are acting against the interests of the community by striking, and all we are asking by this Amendment is that the same pressure shall be brought to bear upon associations of employers to prevent them injuring the community. During the last 12 months over 20,000 men have been discharged through an international combination, and one of the principal supporters of the Government, who has gone over from these Benches to sit on the Government Benches, is the head of that combination, which is a chemical combine. The result of this has been that the services of some 20,000 men have been dispensed with, because their labour has become superfluous in view of the organisation of the new combine. Under this Bill, that is considered to be all right, because it is business, but the man who is largely responsible for that combination will not face his constituents.

I must again remind the hon. Member that the Amendment we are discussing is one providing that all associations of employers whatsoever shall be deemed to be trade unions, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine his arguments to that question.

But they are acting as trade unions. They meet together and decide to sell a certain commodity at a certain price, and they prescribe that it must be sold under certain conditions; therefore, they are acting as a trade union and doing simply what we do in the case of our trade unions. We say that we want a certain price for our labour, and, if we cannot get that price, then we claim the right to say that we shall not supply the labour. The employers say, "This is the price of our commodity; if you will not pay our price, you cannot have it," and then they proceed to limit production. Is that not the same thing as that which is done by our trade unions when we say that a certain wage must be paid for the work we do? I wish to point out that we are simply asking that combinations of employers shall be treated in exactly the same way as the Government propose to treat trade unions. We claim that employers' associations

It would give me great pain to have to ask the hon. Member to resume his seat for disregarding my ruling.

I hope you will not do so. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat this point, because I understand that repetition is the first article in oratory.

Repetition is provided against in the Standing Orders.

I never trouble about Standing Orders, but I admit that you, Mr. Hope, have given me more latitude than I am entitled to, and therefore I am not going to transgress your ruling any further. I only want to say that, so far as we are concerned, you can pass all your rules and Regulations about trade unions, and all we ask is that you should give us a fair and square deal. We want employers' organisations placed in the same position as trade unions, and then we shall not be afraid to face the music, and we shall heat you in the finish.