These Combination Acts, as they were called, declared that all contracts entered into for obtaining an advance of wages, or shortening hours of work, or for preventing persons employing whomsoever they think proper, or controlling any person in carrying on his business" were void, and any workman entering into such a contract or entering into a combination for these objects, or inducing any other person to do so, or leave their work, or to maintain men on strike, is made liable to imprisonment for three months without hard labour or two months with it. There does not appear to have been any Parliamentary debate on the former of these Acts, but there seems to be little doubt that, apart from this and other statutes, at common law it was not an actionable conspiracy to combine to raise wages. I shall discuss the isolated dicta to the contrary hereafter. Soon after the passing of this Act prosecutions were instituted against offenders under the Act. The trade unionists, for the most part, still desired to see the Statute of Apprentices modernized and extended to new industries; the petition of the Calico Printers (Commons' Journal for 1804) is an example of this, and of the Weavers (1813), while the employers, who desired to obtain cheap labour and objected to the restraints of the wage fixing and the old seven years' apprenticeship, sought for its repeal. Towards the end of the century free bargaining between capitalist and workmen had become well nigh universal, and, if we may anticipate, in the case of R. v. The Kent Justices, 1811,' it was held, first, that the fixing of wages by Justices under the old statutes was discretionary and not a duty, and, secondly, that the Act of Apprentices only applied to industries in existence in 1563. As a result, in 1813, the provisions of the Statute of Apprentices as to wage fixing were repealed, after a long debate." It was under these circumstances that the injustice of prohibiting combinations became acute. Until the Statute of Apprentices was repealed or became inoperative, it was very arguable that the prohibition of combinations of workmen was a corollary of the State determining conditions of labour, but, as we have seen, from 1800 onwards, until the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1824, the State protection of the workmen had ceased while they were prevented from combining in their own defence. To put the matter in the words of Lord Jeffrey, at a dinner to Joseph Hume at the time of the repeal in 1825, "a single master was at liberty at any time to turn off the whole of his workmen at once-a hundred or a thousand in number-if they would not accept of the wages he chose to offer, but it was made an offence for the whole of the workmen to leave that master at once if he refused to give the wages they chose to require." The Combination Act, in theory, applied to combinations of employers as well as workmen, but, although the employers formed unions to raise prices or regulate wages, such as the Sheffield Mer 1 14 East, 395. 2 Parl. Debates, new series, Vol. 25, pp. 1120-131, etc. cantile Manufacturing Union of 1814, there is no case in the records of any prosecution or conviction. Passing then to the specific prosecutions of workmen, we find a large number of the cases reported in the newspapers of that time, most of which do not find their way into the reports. We have to notice in particular the following cases: In 1798, the prosecution of five printers at the Old Bailey for combination under a special Act; the men were members of a Trade Friendly Society, and, as was said by the prosecution, "it was called a Friendly Society, but, by means of some wicked men among them, this Society degenerated into a most abominable meeting for the purpose of conspiracy." Their offence was that those of the trade who did not join their society were summoned and were told that, unless they conformed to the practice of the journeymen, they would not be employed: presumably the others would have struck.' A sentence of two years' imprisonment was imposed by the Recorder. In 1799, in R. v. Hammond' and in R. v. Salter (1809), persons were convicted for combining and threatening to strike in order to raise wages. In 1810 the Journeymen Printers were sentenced by the Common Sergeant of London under the 1800 Statute. In 1824 there was a prosecution arising out of the Scottish Weavers' strike which, curiously enough, was called to enforce a rate fixed by the Justices. Sentences vary 1 From a pamphlet in Professor Foxwell's library. ing from four to eighteen months were imposed.' Other cases which may be mentioned are the seven scissor grinders, for combining to enforce the customary rates at Sheffield in 1816 and those of the Bolton Mill Workers (1818); Coachmakers and Calico Workers in 1817 to 1819, the former being reported in the Times, sub nomine R. v. Connell, July 10th, and the latter, R. v. Ferguson and Edge. There are many other cases, raising no particular points of law, reported in contemporary documents. 2 We have to observe that, during this period, legislation was passed making Friendly Societies undoubtedly lawful, and there is no doubt that many organizations at this time, which were really trade unions, sought to cover their trade union practices under the guise of a Friendly Society. As early as 1794, this was suggested by Parliament. Examples are to be found in the Friendly Society of Ironfounders, the Benevolent Society of Coachmakers and the old Curriers Society, which has recently been before the courts." It is a curious instance of the futility of unpopular legislation that we find a large number of societies, avowedly trade union, being instituted during this period, such as the compositors, 1801, the cabinetmakers, and several branches of the engineering trade, circa 1816 to 1824; masons, cuttlers and hatters, coalminers, shoemakers, and weavers, and others. Apart from the Combination Acts there are two statutes still unrepealed which make it unlawful 1 A Rebort of Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 62. 22 S.T. 489. 3 See Report, H.C. Journals, pp. 323, 7944 White v. Riley [1921] 1 Ch. 1. for the delegates of one society to appoint delegates to meet another society in order to persuade the latter to join the former: the Unlawful Societies Act,' and the Seditious Meetings Act,' which deals with societies bound together by oaths. Both these statutes have been recently before the courts, but the late Mr. Justice Neville has decided that though these statutes cannot be said to be obsolete, Parliament has dealt with trade unions subsequently in such a way that they can no longer be said to render trade unions illegal.' were $ 2. REPEAL OF COMBINATION ACTS. During the operation of the Combination Acts labour disturbances had become very acute. The Luddite Riots of 1811 produced serious violence in many counties and many machines broken; in 1812 there were forty thousand cotton weavers on strike and in 1814 there were many riots. Seven years after that time, however, industry began to improve, and, in 1824, Joseph Hume and Francis Place managed to persuade the House of Commons to appoint a committee to inquire into the Combination Laws. This committee was most artfully controlled by Hume and, while its scope was represented to the Government as being concerned only with the encouragement of machine production, in fact, the members were soon induced to consider the repeal of the Combination Acts. The resolutions of the committee, unanimously favour 1 (1799) 39 George III, c. 19. 2 (1817) 57 George III, c. 19. 3 See Luby v. The Warwickshire Miners' Association, [1912] 2 Ch. 371; Parr v. Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation, [1913], 1 Ch. 366. C |