Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:30:50.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of the Osborne Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Henry Pelling
Henry Pelling
Affiliation:
St John's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Osborne judgment is always mentioned in political histories of the early twentieth century as one of the two principal judgments affecting the trade unions and the growth of the Labour party-the other being the Taff Vale decision of 1901. In both cases officers of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were acting upon what they believed to be constitutional lines; in both cases, after lawsuits which went to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, they were found to be behaving illegally; and in both cases parliament was eventually persuaded, if not precisely to reverse the Lords’ decision, at least to modify the law drastically in the unions’ favour. The repercussions upon the Lords themselves were not insignificant: the ordinary voter found it difficult to distinguish between the judicial and the legislative functions of the Upper House; and so both cases strengthened the willingness of trade unionists to support the Liberal government in its constitutional struggle against the Lords. Such was the outcome of Disraeli's decision in 1875 to retain the final appeal to the Lords, despite Gladstone's attempt, in the Judicature Act of 1873, to abolish it altogether.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 889 - 909
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Stevens, R., ‘The final appeal: reform of the House of Lords and privy council, 1867–1876’, Law Quarterly Review, LXXX (1964), 343–69.Google Scholar

2 Heuston, R. V., Lives of the lord chancellors 1885–1940 (Oxford, 1964), p. 163.Google Scholar

3 Bagwell, P. S., The railwaymen (London, 1963), p. 256.Google Scholar

4 Alcock, G. W., Fifty years of railway trade-unionism (London, 1922), p. 338.Google Scholar

5 Osborne, W. V., My case (London, 1910), p. 13.Google Scholar

6 Labour Party Conference report [hereinafter LPCR] 1903, pp. 28f.

7 B***ll, Railwaymen, p. 243.

8 Ibid. p. 245.

9 Ibid.

10 Osborne, My case, p. 18.

11 Daily Express, 17 Sept. 1906.

12 Osborne, My case, p. 23.

13 Osborne v. A.S.R.S. [1909] 1. Ch. 163.

14 Steele v. S.W.M.F. [1907] 1. K.B. 361.

15 Osborne, My case, pp. 28f.

16 The Times, 22 Nov. 1910.

17 Bagwell, Railwaymen, p. 698 for statistics.

18 Osborne, My case, p. 60.

19 Alcock, Fifty years, p. 339.

20 A.S.R.S. v. Osborne [1910] AC. 87.

21 Osborne, My case, p. 36.

22 The Times, 2 Jan. 1909.

23 Bagwell, Railwaymen, p. 254.

24 The Times, 9 Dec. 1910; Osborne v. A.S.R.S. [1911] 1 Ch. 540.

25 Bagwell, Railwaymen, p. 255.

26 The Times, 18 May 1911.

27 Ibid. 3 Oct. 1910.

28 S. and Webb, B., History of trade unionism (London, 1920 edn), p. 608.Google Scholar

29 Cole, G. D. H., Short history of the British working-class movement (London, 1948), pp. 31 1f.Google Scholar

30 LPCR 1906, pp. 12f.

31 T.U.C. Report 1909, p. 137.

32 MacDonald to N.E.C. members, 14 June 1911, MacDonald papers, PRO 30/69/1155.

33 Labour Party N.E.C. minutes, 9 Feb. 1910.

34 Bagwell, p. 256; N.E.C. minutes, 30 June and 29 Sept. 1910.

35 The Times, 10 July 1909.

36 Gregory, R., The miners and politics, 1906–1914 (Oxford, 1968), pp. 112, 128f.Google Scholar

37 LPCR, 1910, p. 109.

38 N.E.C. minutes, 29 Sept. 1910.

39 Parl. Deb. xvi, 1360 (13 Apr. 1910).

40 M.F.G.B., E.C. minutes 8 Nov. 1910.

41 Ibid.

42 M.F.G.B., Special Conference: Parliamentary Labour Fund Injunction, Aug. 1910, p. 30.

43 Burt to MacDonald, 28 Oct. 1910, MacDonald papers, PRO 30/69/1154.

44 T.U.C. Report 1910, p. 157.

45 Asquith, circular to cabinet, 4 Oct. 1910, Asquith MSS 104/116 (Bodleian Library); Asquith to the king, 13 Oct. 1910, Asquith MSS 5/242.

46 For their memoranda before the meeting, see PRO CAB 37/103/42–52.

47 Diary, June 1910, MacDonald papers, PRO 30/69/1753/1.

48 Ibid. p. 4. Also quoted by D. Marquand, Ramsay MacDonald (London, 1977), p. 123. Elibank was the Liberal chief whip.

49 Joint board, Reversal of the Osborne judgment: special conference, 10 Nov. 1910, pp. 1–14.

50 Ibid. pp. 22, 25.

51 The Times, 22 Nov. 1910.

52 Parl. Deb. xx, 121 (18 Nov. 1910).

53 Asquith to the king, 22 Nov. 1910, Asquith MSS 5/248–9.

54 Parl. Deb. xx, 275 (22 Nov. 1910).

55 Labour Party N.E.C. minutes, Emergency Committee, 16 Nov. 1910.

56 Blewett, N., The peers, the parties and the people (London, 1972), pp. 410f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 LPCR 1911, p. 10.

58 Blewett, Peers, p. 297.

59 Wilson v. A.S.E. [1911] 2 Ch. 324; Labour Party N.E.C. minutes, 25 May 1911.

60 McKibbin, R., Evolution of the Labour party, 1910–1914 (Oxford, 1974), p. 21.Google Scholar

61 The party lost two other seats, one by the expulsion of another miners’ member and one as the result of Lansbury's resignation and then defeat in a by-election on the women's suffrage question. Mrs M. A. Hamilton suggested in her Arthur Henderson (1938), p. 85, that the Osborne judgment brought the Miners’ Federation to join the Labour party. Actually, the miners’ ballot was taken before the Appeal Court decision in 1908.

62 LPCR 1911, p. 82.

63 Parl. Deb. xxi, 1244 (16 Feb. 1911); Parliamentary Papers 1911, v, 797f.

64 Part. Deb. xxii, 385 (1 Mar. 1911).

65 MacDonald to Elibank, 4 Oct. 1911, quoted F. Owen, Tempestuous Journey (1954), pp. 207f.

66 Parl. Deb. xx, 85 (18 Nov. 1910).

67 Ibid., xxix, 1375 (10 Aug. 1911).

68 Ibid., xxvi, 916ff. (30 May 1911).

69 Morning Post, 22 Dec. 1909.

70 T.U.C. Quarterly Report, June 1911, p. 18.

71 Churchill to the king, 27 June 1911, quoted Churchill, R. S., Winston Churchill, companion volume, 11 (London, 1969), p. 1094.Google Scholar

72 Asquith to the king, 30 Nov. 1911, Asquith MSS 6/85.

73 The Times, 25 Oct. 1911; LPCR 1912, p. 90.

74 Gwyn, W. B., Democracy and the cost of politics (London, 1962), p. 204.Google Scholar

75 Arnot, R. Page, The miners, 11 (1953), 136Google Scholar; Cole, , Working-class movement, p. 314Google Scholar; Snowden, P., Autobiography, 1 (London, 1934), 223.Google Scholar

76 LPCR 1912, pp. 90f.

77 N.E.C. minutes, 5 Dec 1912.

78 M.F.G.B., E.C. minutes, Dec. 1912, p. 3.

79 Arnot, The miners, 11, 137; Constitutional Labour Union, ‘Annual Returns’, PRO F.S. 11/131.

80 Parl. Deb. xxxviii, 593 (9 May 1912).

81 Ibid., XLI, 2975ff. (6 Aug. 1912).

82 Ibid. 3068.

83 T.U.C. Report, 1912, p. 113.

84 Ibid. p. 169.

85 The Times, 6 Dec. 1912.

86 See Isaacs's speech, Parl. Deb. XLVII, 1689–94 (31 Jan. 1913).

87 The Times, 4Jan. 1913; T.U.C. Report, 1913, p. 152.

88 ‘Minutes of Deputation’, Asquith MSS 89/16.

89 Henderson to MacDonald, 21 Feb. 1913, LP/MAC/09/1/67. (Labour party letter files).

90 Parl. Deb. (Lords), xiii, 1389–95 (18 Feb. 1913).

91 Henderson to MacDonald, loc.cit.

92 Parl. Deb. XLIX, 81 (6 Mar. 1913).

93 Ibid. 90, 93.

94 LPCR 1914, p. 29.

95 T.U.C. Report, 1913, pp.63, 226–37.

96 Secretary's circular to unions, Oct. 1913, LP/TUA/11/31.

97 Dickson to Head Office, undated, LP/TUA/11/36.

98 Gavan Duffy to Head Office, undated LP/TUA/1 1/49.

99 J. S. Middleton to J. Asquith, 7 Nov. 1913, LP/TUA/1 1/15.

100 Cotton Factory Times, 28 Nov. 1913.

101 Standard, 26 Dec. 1913.

102 The Times, 6 Jan. 1914.

103 ‘Report of the chief registrar of friendly societies for 1912’, Parliamentary Papers, 1913, LVII, 763.Google Scholar

104 ‘Report of the chief registrar…for 1914’, P.P. 1914–16, LIX, 424f.

105 M.F.G.B., Annual Conference Report, 1913, pp. 104f.

106 In Derbyshire, where the miners were said to be ‘90 per cent Liberal’, they nevertheless agreed to accept the results of a national ballot to determine the question. See M.F.G.B., ibid., p. 71. Dr J. E. Williams, in his Derbyshire Miners (1962), p. 505, has mistaken this decision for the ballot itself.

107 Constitutional Labour Union, ‘Annual Return for 1913’, PRO F.S. 11/131.

108 Clegg, H. A., Fox, A. and Thompson, A. F., History of British trade unions since 1889, 1 (Oxford, 1964), 419.Google Scholar

109 Clarke, P. F., ‘Electoral sociology of modern Britain’, History, LVII (1972), 50f.Google Scholar; Douglas, R., ‘Labour in decline’, in K. D. Brown, Essays in anti-Labour history (London, 1974), pp. 105–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wilson, Trevor, Downfall of the Liberal Party (London, 1966), p. 18.Google Scholar

110 Osborne, W.V., Trade union funds and party politics (London, 1910), p. 6.Google Scholar

111 Olson, M., The logic of collective action (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).Google Scholar

112 Halévy, E., History of the English People in 1905–1915 (London, 1934), p. 439.Google Scholar

113 Harrison, M., Trade unions and the Labour party since 1945 (London, 1960)Google Scholar. See also Ewing, K. D., ‘The legal regulation of trade union political activities’ (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1980).Google Scholar

114 H.M.S.O., Royal commission on trade unions and employers’ organisations, 1965–68 (London, 1968), pp. 921–6Google Scholar. Cf. also Grunfeld, C., Modern trade union law (London, 1966), p. 295.Google Scholar

115 H.M.S.O., Annual report of the certification officer, 1979 (London, 1980), p. 51.Google Scholar

116 Oxford (1965), p. 114.