1807. But do you not see the difference between that and-to take the case of employers-one employer informing another that so and so is on strike, or has been very troublesome in his colliery ?—I should say there was certainly no objection to one owner informing another that one of his workmen who had left him had been very troublesome.

1808. One or more or a hundred ?-Yes. You have put it to me whether, if they had been troublesome at the colliery, I thought there would be any objection to the one employer informing the other of that, and I say certainly not.

1809. But the man who leads a strike is rather troublesome, I suppose? Has the person who makes the communication not a material interest in communicating it to the other employer?—Yes.

1810. And has not the employer to whom the communiIcation is made also a material interest of his own in receiving that information ?—Yes; it depends upon the circumstances, I think.

1811. Do you see anything wrong in the communication being made from the one to the other?--I think that would depend on the circumstances.

1812. A law which deals with the question of black lists, and which is also to depend upon the circumstances of the case, would be a very vague law, would it not?—It would be vague, I agree.

1813. In the case of workmen, or even in the case of employers, what means have they of knowing whether they would be acting within the law or not if it is to depend altogether on circumstances ?—I cannot say.

1814. You see, therefore, the difficulty of legislating on the point?-I quite agree there is considerable difficulty in legislating upon the subject.

1815. Do you think it legitimate for unionists to strike against non-unionists ?-With reference to that, I can only say that it is permissible at present.

1816. By "wrong" I mean legally wrong; do you think it should be legally wrong ?—I think so, because it leads to very great hardship towards the non-unionists; they are put in very considerable difficulty.

1817. Do you think you would curtail the right of a workman to refuse to work with other workmen ?-I certainly think there is no reason why one workman should refuse to work with another workman.

1818. It may be very unreasonable, but persons who act unreasonably do not necessarily commit an offence against the law ?-No.

1819. I want to know whether you would make that unreasonable conduct a breach of the law ?-I should.

1820. Do you consider that employers have a right to refuse to take into their employ persons who wish to be employed?—That would depend upon circumstances too,

I think.

1821. Would you in any case consider it an offence in the employer to refuse to employ a man?—It is certainly not an offence now.

1822. Would you make it so ?—No.

1823. Do you not see that if you are going to make it an offence for a workman under any circumstances to refuse to work with another man you are curtailing the right of that workman in refusing employment, and that being so, do you not see that there would be an inconsistency with that law if you continue to leave quite unrestricted the power of the employer to refuse to employ ?-There is that difficulty, I admit, but I would point out this distinction, that the case of unionists refusing to work with nonunionists certainly brings about a very great hardship upon the non-unionist workmen, whereas I do not see that there is the same hardship brought about in the case of employers, because I have never known of a case where an employer has refused to receive a workman unless for some very good reason.

1824. (Sir William Lewis.) That is if he has employment for him?—Yes, if he has employment for him.

1825. (Sir Godfrey Lushington.) Surely an employer, if he thought it practicable, might say, "I refuse to employ any unionist???—He might say so now.

127

1826. And in certain trades he might be able to carry Mr. Charles it out?—Yes. Kenshole. 1827. And in other trades, perhaps, if he does not carry 23 Nov. 1904, it out, it is because he finds himself unable to do so ?—Yes, but I have never known that to take place, speaking for the district from which I have come, because it has always been the practice at the South Wales collieries not to enquire at all as to whether a man may be a unionist or non-unionist, and we never make any distinction.

1828. It comes to this, that in your view the action of employers in refusing to employ is generally reasonable, and the action of workmen in refusing to be employed is generally unreasonable ?—I think that is so.

1829. Now, as to the question of a secondary or sympathetic strike, do you understand what I mean by that? -Yes.

1830. Do you consider that should be permitted or not permitted ?--You mean coming out in sympathy with others?

1831. Yes. Supposing there were two collieries in a district and there was a strike in one, would you think it lawful to agitate for a strike in the other in support of the first?-I can only say with reference to that, that it is legitimate at present, and there is no objection to it-I mean provided they give the usual notice for termination of their contract.

1832. I think you told us that when there is a strike in certain collieries of your Association the other members of the Association would refuse to take on the strikers if they knew they were strikers?—Yes.

1833. Is not that exactly the same thing, only inverted, as a secondary strike of workmen ?-Well, yes, it is.

1834. And therefore if one should be prohibited, it would be only fair that the other should be prohibited ? -Yes. I think if both were prohibited there is really no objection.

1835. Now as to violence, you say that picketing always leads to violence ?—I do not say always, but almost always.

1836. Do unions profess a policy of violence ?—They do not profess it.

1837. Do you think they profess a policy of peace ?— I think they profess a policy of peace; I have never known them to do otherwise.

1838. Have you ever known them in a case where one of their leaders has been guilty of violence or agitating for violence, denounce that man to the police ?—I havo not; no such case has come under my notice.

1839. Have you ever known a case in which they have defended that man before the magistrate ?—I think in the case I have already referred to of the strike at Aberdare, where the prosecution was against the miners' leader, he was defended by the solicitors acting on behalf of the Miners' Federation, but I do not know whether it came out of the funds of the Federation or not.

1840. Have you ever known a case in which after their representative or workmen has been convicted and fined they have paid the fine ?—I have not known of a case.

1841. Have you ever known of a case where a workman has been sent to prison, and the leaders of the local union have met him when he left prison and given him a triumphal reception ?-I have known that; that was done in this particular case.

1842. Have you ever known of a case where a workman has been found guilty of violence and the trade union have punished that man as throwing discredit on the trade union by his misconduct ?-I have not known of such

case.

1843. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) To take first, picketing, I think you suggested that as things actually are picketing almost always leads to violence or to intimidation ?— Yes, I say so, especially in large centres of industry.

1844. And yet picketing is permitted by the law at present, is it not?—Yes.

1845. You suggest there should be an alteration of the law on that subject ?—I say with reference to picketing that is the effect of it, and I think there should be an alteration of the law with reference to it.

1846. And such an alteration of the law as would make picketing, at any rate of the nature you indicate, illegal? -Yes.

1847. I notice that you give a table in your proof which states the amount of strike pay paid, and that that table shows that the strike pay has increased from £4,000 in 1900 to £20,000 in 1903 ?—Yes.

1848. You infer from that, do you not, that the number or the length of strikes has increased in 1903 compared with 1900?-That is so; they vary very considerably.

1849. But there is no evidence of a decrease of strikes during 1903, on the contrary rather an increase ?With reference to the amount, as I say, there was one particular colliery in 1903 which was on strike the whole year, and that would account for a considerable increase in the amount; I do not think there were more strikes that year.

1850. At any rate you do not suggest there were fewer strikes?-In 1903 I should say there were fewer strikes.

1851. That is contrary to what I understood had been the testimony ?—I pointed out the reason why in 1903 the amount was so large.

1852. Therefore the amount of strike pay is not really an index of the number or frequency of the strikes ?— Very frequently not.

1853. You told us that the strikes without notice, that is in breach of contract, have been greatly reduced in number since the Taff Vale decision ?-Very greatly.

1854. But the other strikes, what I may call for the moment legal and legitimate strikes not in breach of contract, have not suffered at any rate such a diminution ? -That is quite possible.

1855. You do not tell us that there has been any diminution ?—I do not suggest that there has been.

1856. Therefore, if we are seeking to inquire as to the effect of the recent decisions we may leave out of account all those decisions which have no reference to breach of contract; there is no evidence that the decisions which have taken place, other than those relating to breach of contract, have had any influence as to the number or frequency of the strikes ?—I do not think they have.

1857. Therefore all the various decisions, other than those relating to breach of contract, have not, as far as your evidence goes, had any effect in increasing the number of strikes ?-No.

1858. Or in diminishing the number of strikes ?—I do not think they have in South Wales.

1859. I notice that all your evidence as to the effect of Sir Charles Dilke's Bill is with reference to its effect in the matter of breaches of contract ?—Yes.

1860. Would you have any objection to it if it were carefully limited to strikes in which there was no breach of contract? I do not want a general answer, as it is not fair to put it in that way, but the objection you made to the terms of Sir Charles Dilke's Bill had reference to its possible effect in inducing breaches of contract ?It certainly would have that effect.

1861. But that same objection would not apply if it were limited to cases in which there was no breach of contract?-Well, as I say, that is a very general question, and I could not say without consideration.

1862. Have you within your knowledge any case in which the employers have sued the individual workmen for breach of contract in absenting themselves from work?-Yes.

1863. It is the practice in South Wales to sue individual workmen for damages for breach of contract of that sort ? -Yes.

1864. And you are able to obtain damages proportionate to the breaches of contract ?—Yes.

1865. And in the aggregate by suing all the workmen you can get damages proportionate to the loss that those workmen in the aggregate have caused you ?—Yes, you may do so.

1866. And that has been done in the north of England, for instance, and I suppose in South Wales ?-It has.

1867. And as I understand you wish to retain a further remedy, namely, the remedy against the trade union funds as well as against the funds of the individual workmen ?-I do not know; if we took proceedings against the individual workmen and recovered damages against them, we should not be entitled to sue in respect of the same damages against the trade union.

1868. But at any rate what you wish to preserve is the right as an alternative to proceed either against the Trade Union funds, or against the funds of the individual offenders ?-Yes.

1869. As a matter of fact damages have been recovered from individual workmen ?—Yes.

1870. And damages have been paid?—Yes, in some

cases.

1871. (Sir William Lewis.) But are there not great difficulties in obtaining the money especially where the man may cease working at the colliery and there is no money in the hands of the employer? How are you to obtain the money in such a case ?-If there is no money in the hands of the employer, and as many of these men are single men, the only remedy would be to have them committed to prison, which would never do of course, as it would mean imprisoning a large number of

men.

1872. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) Why would it never do ?— I mean to say that it would never do to go and imprison half of your workmen, because you would be simply depriving yourself of their services.

1873. But at any rate you have a power so effective that you refrain from using it ?—It would never do for them to use it.

1874. (Sir Godfrey Lushington.) It is rather a troublesome thing to bring 500 actions against 500 workmen ?— It is troublesome, and for this reason, that on the day when the cases would be heard all your pits would be idle, and you could not get any recompense for that.

1875. (Sir William Lewis.) You said in reply to Mr Webb that they might recover the amount of their loss,. but in practice there is nothing of the kind, because on the day of the hearing of the cases the collieries are stopped?-That is so.

1876. And as they are not stopped through the action of the workmen, consequently the employer cannot get any redress?-There is no redress in respect of that stoppage.

1877. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) The damage caused by the men absenting themselves from work, of course, might be very great indeed in the case of a colliery ?—That is so very frequently.

1878. That damage, I suppose, is greater if the men absent themselves without notice than if they absent themselves after due notice ?-It is.

1879. And your evidence has been confined, I take it, entirely to the case of damage caused by the men absenting themselves without notice ?-Yes. In those cases proceedings are taken.

1880. Have you anything to suggest as to the damage which is caused, or the loss at any rate which is caused, by a strike taking place after due notice ?—In what way do you mean?

1881. Expressions have been used as to the pits being laid idle by the action of the Trade Unions even after due notice; when the men have given a month's notice in accordance with their contract they have laid the pits idle (it is said) by simply exercising their legal right and refusing to enter into a new contract ?-Yes.

1882. Have you any objection to make to that, or to the possibility of that ?-I cannot see that I can make any objection to it.

1883. You do not suggest any alteration of the law which would make it impossible for the men to withdraw their labour in that way?—I could not suggest that; if they give their proper notice I do not see how I can suggest it, because they are acting constitutionally in adopting that course, it appears to me.

1884. (Mr. Cohen.) There would be loss without any wrong ?-Yes.

1885. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) And similarly if someone advised all the men in the employment of a firm to absent themselves after due notice without breach of contract, you would not suggest that he should be liable for any damages ?-He appears to me to be acting constitutionally and I could not suggest that he could be liable for damages.

1886. You do not suggest that any dicta or decisions which may seem to hold that he was acting illegally should be embodied in law ?-No, I do not suggest that.

1887. (Sir William Lewis.) Could you give us, by reference to the Association's proceedings, the number of strikes since the establishment of the Federation in South Wales, say, since 1900, because it would appear by the tabular statement given in your proof that they have increased ?-The number of strikes since the Federation was registered up to August, 1904, was sixtyeight, that is upon the unionist and non-unionist question.

1888. But have they increased or decreased since the termination of the Sliding Scale Committee, when the Federation was established in South Wales ?-I am not in a position to say.

1889. But could you send it afterwards to the Secre

Mr. GEORGE C. LOCKET 1892. (Chairman.) You are vice-chairman of the Society of Coal Merchants in London ?—Yes.

1893. And at the time of the dock strike in 1889 you were honorary secretary of the same society ?—I was.

1894. And had necessarily a great deal to do with the labour difficulties which arose in connection with the trade owing to that strike ?—Yes.

1895. What happened at that time ?-In August, 1889, at the time of the dock strike, a certain number of men, comparatively few in number, who were employed in discharging coal steamers at the docks, decided to strike in sympathy with the dockers, and having done so, they proceeded to go round to all the coal depots and wharves in that part of London to try and get the men to join them. They were more or less successful in the East End, but when they came to extend their operations to other parts of London they found much greater difficulty. In the north, west, and south, the men were strongly averse to going out; they had no grievances, they were extremely well paid, they were on very good terms with their employers, and they strongly objected to going out, and they did not go out until they were practically forced to do so. Of course you will understand that the coal trade in London is carried on at a very large number of centres, some of them very large depôts where a number of merchants have accommodation, and where in the aggregate a considerable number of men are employed.

1896. Is the coal trade of London partly sea-borne as well as railway borne ?—Yes, that is so; by far the larger proportion is rail borne. There are a number of other smaller depôts where there are only two or three merchants, and in some two or three cases there are sole occupation depôts where only one merchant is in occupation. Of course it is quite possible to get the railway companies to close the gates of these depôts so as to prevent intruders coming in; it interferes with the work to some extent, but at the time of the strike they closed the gates. But the carmen when they go out have to run the gauntlet of the men who are stationed at the gates of the depôts for picketing purposes, and it was in consequence of that picketing that the strike practically spread to the whole of London. I took an active part in connection with the trade generally, and, of course, in connection with the men employed by my own firm, and I was assured by my own men over and over again in conversation that they had no wish to go out on strike, that their only anxiety was to continue at work, and that if I could assure them of adequate police protection they were quite willing to continue at work. They did continue at work I think longer than any other men in London, and on one occasion there was a large crowd of hooting and jeering men outside one of our principal depôts; we had some large orders to execute for the Government at that time, for the Houses of Parliament, and the Post Office, and it was absolutely necessary that 94.

129

C. Locket. 23 Nov. 1904.

that coal should be got out. I went and saw the men Mr. George and they said they were quite willing to go if I would go with them, and I said I was quite willing to go,for I was not going to ask them to do anything I was not prepared to do myself. I saw the inspector of police and told him what we were going to do, and we went out, and about a mile down the Hampstead Road we were followed by, I suppose, 2,000 or 3,000 shouting, hooting, jeering, and threatening men. That was what they had to undergo at that time and what finally led them to stop work. The same thing occurred at other times. I have mentioned in the précis of my evidence that as far as I am aware no actual violence occurred, but I have been looking at the evidence I gave before the Royal Commission on Labour in 1892, and I find that I am wrong.there; there were several cases of actual violence, and in one case two of our own men were pulled off their vans, the traces were cut, the horses driven away, and the men badly beaten. There were other cases that occurred to men in the employment of others. The argument the men used to me always was, "It is all very well so long as you are here and so long as the police are about, but it is when our work is over and we have to go away to our homes singly; perhaps the men next door may be strikers and they may object to our having continued to work, and we are afraid of what may happen then." I do not think it is the higher officials of the union, such as the president and secretary, who are responsible for it. They generally have their hands full of organisation work, but it is the members of committees, the irresponsible individuals, whose conduct leads to these interferences

1897. What is your view then as to the effect that would follow if by reason of the proposals in the Bills which you have seen (Vide Appendices, pp. 7 and 8), the operation of picketing was extended ?-I think it would make it quite impossible for men who were anxious to work to remain at work.

1898. Would you be in favour of altering the law in the other direction as regards picketing? Would you make picketing altogether illegal ?-No, I think it is a question for the police, and I do not think the law as it stands requires much alteration. I think it is a matter really for police organisation.

1899. Suppose the term "peaceful persuasion" is used, what is your view as to what peaceful persuasion is ? It is an extremely difficult term to define and I suppose quot homines, tot sententiæ, every man who was employed on picketing duty would put his own interpretation upon it. My own opinion is that there is no such thing as peaceful persuasion.

1900. Have you anything to say as to the proposal that the law should be altered in such a way as to make trade union funds unaffected by the action of their officials ?—I can see no reason why a trade union should be treated any differently to every other corporation, registered or not; a limited company or a corporation is responsible for the acts of its officials,

1901. Or an individual ?—Or an individual, and I can see no reason why they should be put on a different plane to the rest of the community. One of my present partners had an instance of that, not at the time of the dock strike, but about eighteen months afterwards. There was a strike in connection with the Shipping Federation, and the Coal Porters' Union tried to stop the discharge of a steamer because the men were not members of the Seamens' and Firemens' Union. Two delegates of the Coal Porters' Union brought an action against my partner's foreman for libel, and my partner had to defend the action. The ground of the libel was that he had stated that their demands were simply for the purpose of putting money into their own pockets and not into the pockets of the men. The secretary of the Coal Porters' Union at that time took the two men to the office of Messrs. Rollit and Son, solicitors, and gave instructions for the action to be brought. The men themselves stated all through that they were compelled to bring the action, and that they had no wish to do so. The action was brought before Mr. Justice Day, and in giving his decision Mr. Justice Day said that he could not describe the action merely as a frivolous one, because it was very much worse, and it was dismissed with costs; but when my partner sought to recover the costs from the union they repudiated any responsibility whatever in the matter, and he had to pay the whole of the costs, about £150, because, of course, the two men who brought the action were mere men of straw, working coal porters, and they had no money out of which to pay the costs. They wrote very strongly on the subject themselves as to the way the union had behaved, and one of them described it as a mean and cowardly action.

1902. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) Just one question. This action that you describe towards the carmen during the Dock strike was, of course, not picketing; the following of the carmen down the Hampstead Road for a mile cannot under any stretch of imagination be brought under the head of picketing ?—It did not happen at the same time ; it was on the same day, but at a different time of the day and at a different place.

1903. What you are complaining of is not an abuse of picketing, but something quite different ?-The assault on our carmen was done by pickets.

1904. But I understand the assault on the carmen was done in the Hampstead Road ?—No, it was not at the same time or place; it was on the same day.

1905. At any rate, the turbulence you are complaining of is, as you afterwards suggested, a matter for the police, and you do not suggest that any alteration of the picketing law in itself would prevent that turbulence happening?— Well, I have not gone closely into that question as to whether any alteration of the law is desirable; I am simply here to give evidence as to facts which took place

1906. Your interpretation of the fact is rather relevant, and I gathered at first that you were bringing that as an instance of the abuse of picketing ?-Undoubtedly, it was an abuse of picketing.

1907. It was really a matter, as you afterwards suggested, for the police to have prevented ?—Yes, but the police unfortunately at that time had their hands full and could not be everywhere; we could not blame the police.

1908 (Chairman.) But still, if I do not misunderstand you, what you have told us to-day is this: that from your experience in the past, picketing grows into other evils, that is to say, other evils follow close upon picketing ?— Invariably.

1909. At present, of course, picketing is very strictly watched, so to speak, by the law, because watching, besetting and picketing is entirely illegal except for the purpose of granting information. Am I to understand from you that in your opinion, if there was a relaxation of the law and picketing was made more easy than it is at present, with a wider scope, the abuse would be also extended?-Certainly, I have no doubt about that.

1910. (Sir William Lewis.) Have you any experience, except in London? You are connected with some collieries in South Wales ?—I have never taken any active part in connection with the South Wales collieries; I have been a director of certain collieries there, but that business was always left very strictly to Mr. William Thomas.

1911. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) I think you suggest that picketing should be made illegal simply ?—I am not here to make any suggestion, but I strongly deprecate any alteration of the law making it more easy.

Mr. B. J. GREENWOOD

1912. (Chairman.) You are of the Loughborough Park Works, Brixton, and you are President of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers of Great Britain and Ireland ?-I was President, but my term of office has now expired.

1913. You have been shown the Bills (Vide Appendices, pp. 7 and 8) in which certain proposals are made for an alteration of the law as between employers and workmen ?--I have.

1914. And you have come here to tell us what your view is of the result if these Bills were passed into law ?— That is so.

1915. We will take the subject as you divide it in your précis into three, and first of all what do you say as to the legalisation of peaceful picketing ?-Picketing in my experience has always been more or less associated with intimidation, and is a direct injury to the employer by making it more difficult for him to carry on his business.

1916. And I suppose an injury to the workman who wishes to continue in employment and is not allowed to do so?—Yes.

1917. Do you consider that if the present restrictions upon picketing were relaxed to the extent of allowing peaceful persuasion by picketing, whatever that may mean, that would lead to more intimidation than there is at present ?-I do.

1918. Would you go the length of saying that you think the law ought to prohibit picketing altogether?— Taking the case of workmen coming from a distance who might be unacquainted with the circumstances that exist at a particular works, I think there would be nothing

called and examined.

wrong in conveying the information to them, but anything beyond that must be detrimental, and that information as a rule is very easily accessible and is generally common knowledge.

1919. (Sir William Lewis.) Is it not generally accompanied with a threat at the end of it ?-It is generally accompanied with a threat, but the mere giving of information would not prejudice anyone. That information is easily accessible and is generally common knowledge so that there is no necessity for a picket to be there in order to convey it.

1920. (Chairman.) What have you to say about the proposed protection of trade union funds ?—If the trade unions, or any other organisation, can damage other people without the possibility of these damaged persons recovering compensation for the damage, it seems to me to introduce a very undesirable state of affairs.

1921. So that you would be against any alteration of the law as it is known in the Taff Vale case ?-Certainly.

1922. As to the restriction of actions against those who interfere with business or contracts, have you any. thing to say?—Every citizen of this country, I suppose, at present has a right to legal redress for damage, and to give particular and peculiar immunity from legal action to these associations would, in my judgment, be detrimental to every thing and everybody.

1923. In other words if a thing is wrong in itself, in the sense of being illegal in itself, you do not think there is any reason for giving it a justification if it is done in the progress of a trade dispute ?-Precisely so;

1924. (Chairman.) You are head of the Broadmead Works, Maidstone, and you are a member of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers' of Great Britain and Ireland ?—Yes, and I am President of the Southern Counties Federation.

1925. How many men have you got in your employment?-At the present time something like 800 or 900; when we are busy we have sometimes 1,500 or 1,600.

1926. I think the two Bills (Vide Appendices. pp. and 8) which were proposed during last session of Parliament by Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Paulton were sent to you, with a view to your considering, as a practical man, what would be the effect if those Bills became law?-Yes.

1927. Would you just give me your opinion upon them. We may take them practically under three heads, and first of all, I would like to hear what you have got to say about picketing. In the Bills there is a proposal to allow what is called peaceful picketing: what is your view about that ?-We object entirely to picketing by numbers of persons, and I cannot see myself that from any point of view it is necessary, because if the object is persuasion, persuasion can be equally well done by one as by a body of men. Immediately you legalise picketing by bodies of men-in the plural number-you bring other forces into play. You have the force of numbers, and when men get together, peaceful persuasion very speedily degenerates something which can hardly be called peaceful. The men will get together, and if their peaceful methods fail, all my experience shows that they speedily develop into something in the nature of jeering or hooting, or other methods which, perhaps, could hardly be construed as a breach of the peace, but which certainly have a coercive effect on more or less weak-minded men, or men who find themselves for the time being in a minority. The objects of pickets, I suppose, would be to tackle the men, more or less, singly, and try to bring the power of numbers to bear upon them.

1928. I think you have had in your own trade practical experience of picketing ?-Slight; we have not had in our recent experiences any cases which have led to a breach of the peace. We had one case in Farnborough in 1896, where we had to apply to the police to keep a watch and see that no breach of the peace was brought about, but, generally speaking, we have been on fairly good terms with our men in the South. Unionism is not so strong there as in the North and other places, and what disputes have arisen have generally been settled fairly amicably.

1929. Are you satisfied with the law as it stands ?I think I may say I am quite satisfied with the law as it stands.

1930. But, as you have already said, you would be against any legalisation of picketing by numbers ?-Yes, I do not suppose that picketing by one man would be construed as in any way an offence, that is to say, if one man was sent to meet other men leaving their work, I do not see how it could lead to any infringement of the rights of the subject in any way, but in all these Bills it is "person or persons," and that might mean from one to fifty.

1931. In fact, it is the number you look upon and not the avowed object ?—The stand I make is this, that if

1933. (Sir Godfrey Lushington.) You say in the last paragraph of the précis of your evidence that trade unions should be liable for the actions of their servants in exactly the same way as any other corporation or association is liable: you are not a lawyer, I suppose ?—No.

1934. Do you know the difference between "tort" and "Contract"?-No, I could not give you a definition of either that would satisfy a legal mind.

1935. Now, if there is no contract, say, as between a club and persons outside, and nevertheless the club commits a nuisance, such as sending smoke into the windows of a house or something of that kind, that would be a case of tort, and not a case of contract; do you know of any action in which a club has been made liable ?—I suppose if the club were the owners of premises on which a nuisance arose the club could be sued as well as anyone else.

1936. Can you refer me to a single case ?-No.

1937. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) I gather that what you object to in the case of legalised picketing is the numbers and the accompaniments which numbers give rise to ?— Yes, that is perfectly obvious; it always has been so and always will be, that numbers bring about a different set of actions from those of individuals; people act differently when in numbers than they do individually.

1938. It is not peaceful persuasion properly so called that you object to, but the method of doing it by large numbers ?-That is so.

1939. Do you not think that those methods and malpractices which arise when large numbers of excited men gather together are matters for the police, and the police ought to restrain them ?-Yes, but it seems to me that if those Bills were to come in force you would give a body of men a certain right which did not belong to ordinary bodies of men.

1940. In fact, you would suggest that you would give a body of men under these circumstances the right to commit a nuisance ?-Yes, they would retort on the policemen, it seems to me, that they had the right to assemble together for the purpose of peacefully persuading; then the question would arise what was peacefully persuading, and then opinions would differ.

1941. It is, therefore, to the manner in which you foresee that they would in all probability exercise that right that you object ?-Yes, and my foresight is based on experience.