and carried, in the Act of 1855. This fancied security was obtained by the deposit of the Rules of Trade Unions with the registrar and justices of the peace. For ten years partial protection was obtained, but in 1866 the delusion of security was rudely dispelled by the decision of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the case of Hornby v. Close (see p. 48 n.), a like decision being given in the case of Farrer v. Close. (See p. 51.) Those decisions left the Unions without protection, their funds being at the mercy of any dishonest official.

Protection of Funds Act, 1869.-Those decisions led to an organised agitation, on the part of the Labour leaders and Trade Union officials, during 1866-69, for an Act which should give security to the funds and property of Trade Unions. Eventually this was obtained by a temporary Act, passed in 1869, repealed by the Trade Union Act, 1871.

The preceding brief historical outline indicates the nature of the grievances of Trade Unions as organised bodies, and also the demands urged in their behalf for legal recognition and protection.

Grievances of Trade Unionists. In addition, however, to the grievances of Trade Unions, as associated bodies of workmen, the members of those bodies-Trade Unionists-had specific grievances as individuals, namely, the curtailment of personal rights by reason of the fact that they acted in combination in matters relating to labour. The

old doctrine of "restraint of trade" was applied to them. This expression is used in sect. 2 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, but it is there introduced to enact that the purposes of a Trade Union shall not be deemed to be unlawful by reason of the fact that they are "in restraint of trade," by which provision acts done by the members thereof are no longer criminal or unlawful in that respect.

Acts specially relating to Conduct of Workmen.-The Acts relating to the conduct of workmen are, some provisions in the Trade Union Act, 1871, the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875. The provisions in these statutes are in addition to those in general Acts, such as the Malicious Injuries to Property Act (24-5 V. 97), and to the common law. The cases which are cited in the following pages are those mainly which have occurred under the three Acts above named; but where other statutes are relied upon, or are quoted in support of the prosecution, and also where the Common Law is applied, the cases bearing thereon are cited. The object sought is to set forth the law in each case, showing at once what are the recognised rights of workmen, individually and in combination, and what are deemed to be offences, together with the penalties or punishments for any breach of the law, whether civil or criminal. There is a necessity for this, inasmuch as the

decisions vary considerably, especially as regards infractions of the law by workmen. Severity in sentences is not now so common as it was. The worst instance of its kind was that on the gas stokers, in 1872. (See p. 120.)

Object of the Act.-This Act, passed in 1868, is "An Act to amend the Law relating to Larceny and Embezzlement." The primary object of the Bill, as brought in by Mr. Russell Gurney, was to protect the partners in a joint or co-partnership concern. The original purpose of the measure doubtless was to provide better security of the property of co-partnerships in the commercial and trading world, many instances having occurred of ruin to a firm through the dishonesty of a single member, the others suffering by reason of defalcations, yet innocent of any complicity in the crime.

Application of Act to Trade Unions.-When the measure was before the House of Commons the attention of the Labour leaders was called to the provisions of the Bill, with the result that interviews took place between Mr. Russell Gurney and some of the workmen's representatives, respecting the measure. It was pointed out to him that the funds of Trade Unions were unprotected, and it was suggested that they were to all intents and purposes "joint beneficial owners" in the property.

He was asked whether, in his opinion, the provisions of the Bill would apply to officers of Trade Unions in cases of embezzlement, they being joint owners of the property. He declared that the provisions would apply, such bodies coming within the expression "other joint beneficial owners," in the preamble to the Bill. They were advised, however, that, inasmuch as Trade Unions were then under a cloud, by reason of the then recent disclosures before the Royal Commission, 1867-9, not to take any public action which might affect the measure, and perhaps delay its enactment.

First Case under the Act.-The Bill was passed, and immediately a case was tried under the Act, Regina v. Blackburn, the prisoner being sentenced to imprisonment under it. (See p. 116.) Offences under the Act are of a criminal character, the punishment being imprisonment, unless express power is otherwise given in some other statute. Officers and members of Trade Unions may be tried under this Act, whether the Union is registered or not, the offence being an indictable one. But the money or property is not recoverable under this Act, nor can it be recovered if the offender is prosecuted under this Act. Registered Trade Unions, as a rule, prefer to proceed under the Trade Union Acts, by which they may recover the money, or the offender may be fined, or he may be imprisoned.

Recent Case under the Act.—It is important that

this Act should be well known, because many Unions are still unregistered, and it is doubtful whether some of the "Labour Unions," Trades Councils, and other bodies can be registered under the Trade Union Acts. The Ilkstone and District Hosiery Union prosecuted a treasurer at Ilkstone Petty Sessions, on January 26th, 1894, for embezzlement under the Trade Union Acts, but failed to obtain a committal, because that body was not registered as a Trade Union, though the component bodies of it were registered. He was then prosecuted under the Recorder's Act, and was convicted and imprisoned.

Important cases under this Act are given in connection with the text of the statute. The Act does not apply to Scotland. Proceedings must be taken in the district in which the offence is committed. (See the Recorder's Act, pp. 115-9.)

II.-FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS ACT, 1875. Nature and Severity of the Act.-The Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875, is a general Act, but it will apply to unregistered Trade Unions in cases where the official is a paid servant of the Union, as in most instances they are. In nearly all defalcations and embezzlements, falsification of the accounts is one of the methods employed. The provisions of this Act ought therefore to be known in connection with the Recorder's Act, especially as the penalties are of a criminal character, and are very severe. Such