?38 REPORT— 1903. 



is to prevent liim from buying in the same manner, as an investment, another house 

 with the income thus set tree, and so on ? 



There are still sixty-eiu:ht Building Societies which remain under the operation 

 of the Act of 1836, having been established before 1856, and not having availed 

 themselves of the option of taking upon themselves the responsibilities and the 

 privileges of the Acts of 1874 and subsequent years. One society (the Birkbeck) 

 stands by itself, as, although its business as a Building Society is considerable-^ 

 the new advance'* granted on mortgage last year having been for 120,000/. — its main 

 operations are those of a deposit bank, and it keeps the far greater part of its 

 funds in investments on liquid securities. The other societies are pursuing the 

 even tenor of their way, just as they have done for the last fifty years, and show 

 OQ the average an increase of business from year to year. But the great body of 

 Building Societies are those which are incorporated under the Acts of 1874 to 

 1894, exceeding 2,000 in number. They have so far recovered from the efl'ects of 

 the depression that their assets are now forty-eight millions, being midway between 

 the low-water mark of 1894 and the high-water mark of 1887. That and the fact 

 that they have in about seven years reduced their properties in possession by 

 about 60 per cent, leads to the inference that they are now, speaking generally, in 

 a fairly healthy condition, and that many years of usefulness are still to be 

 expected for them. 



The Friendly Societies Registry also registers and receives returns from trade 

 unions. These useful and necessary bodies have, I think, been rather cruelly 

 treated, not only in past days, but also in more recent times. Without going 

 back to the bad old times when six poor agricultural labourers were sentenced to 

 seven years' transportation for forming a trade union, or e^ en to the time when 

 they were refused the protection of the law for the funds they had accumulated, 

 because, forsooth, they were for an illegal purpose, it will be sufficient to mark 

 the unexpected change that has been worked in their position since the Act of 

 1871 purported to render them legal. Registry under that Act authorised the 

 trustees of a trade union to hold land not exceeding one acre, vested the property 

 of the union in them, authorised them to sue and be sued on behalf of the union, 

 limited their liability, made the treasurers and officers accountable to them or to 

 the members, and enabled them to take summary proceedings against any person 

 misapplying their funds. But it did not create the unions corporate bodies, and 

 did not enable any ('ourt to entertain legal proceedings for enforcing their con- 

 tracts with their members, recovering contributions due from a member, or recover- 

 ing from the union benefits due to a member or other person, or for enforcing any 

 agi-eement between one trade union and another, even where any such contracts 

 or agreements were secured by bond. It was commonly thought that the effect 

 of all this would be that the unions, having none of the privileges of incorpora- 

 tion, would escape the liabilities which affect corporate bodies; and so much was 

 this the general opinion that the Duke of Devonshire and other members of the 

 Royal Commission on Labour made a minority report in which they suggested that 

 the law in this respect should be altered. 



It has recently been determined that, although unions are not corporate bodies, 

 they are responsible for the acts of their agents as much as if they were. I do 

 not presume to question the propriety of this decision as a matter of law, nor even 

 to say that it is a decision which is contrary to equity ; but only to point out that 

 its result upon the individual member of a trade union, who gave no mandate 

 to its agents to do any illegal or injurious act, but handed over his savings to the 

 trustees of the union, relying on the stringency of the provisions of the Act as to 

 misapplication of funds, is very serious and was unexpected. The contributions of 

 workmen to their trade union represent an amount of self-sacrifice and self-denial 

 that is not readily gauged or measured or understood by persons in easier circum- 

 stances of life. Their object, which is primarily to provide the sinews of war in 

 any conflict that may be necessary to secure their material welfare, and secondarily 

 to provide sick and funeral and pension and out-of-work benefits against the 

 ordinary ills of life, is one that ought to appefil most strongly to the sympathies of 

 the econouiifff* If it is tli« fact that trade .uuLoua. make mistakej-, tvs. motii ptsyple 



