bourhood of a firm struck against for the purpose of giving or obtaining information. It is more than probable that a re-casting of the measure would give no more than this, whilst it is possible that it might do less."

We are glad that at least one trade unionist understands the blow to the abuses of trade unionism which the carrying out of our suggestions would give.

In July Mr. Mawdsley, in a Manchester newspaper, commented on the sentence of one month's imprisonment passed upon men who, having struck at a mill at Springhead, near Oldham, picketed the place, and were convicted at Bradford Quarter Sessions on the charge of attempted intimidation of a workman. He again warned his readers of the limits to picketing practices, and pointed out that "if a man who is working at a mill where the regular operatives are on strike objects to being persuaded or talked to in any way, the law holds that he has a perfect right to be let alone, and to enjoy the freedom he desires, and that any attempt to persuade him under such circumstances constitutes an interference with the liberty of the subject." This, we believe, is no more generally known amongst employers than amongst employed. One of the main objects of this book is to bring to employers the knowledge of their legal rights on this question. In very many abusive cases no prosecution takes place, because neither the employer nor the public generally are aware of the exact state of the law, and because the

employer, with some degree of justification, fears the judgment of sentimental public opinion upon the action he would otherwise bring.

Other recent and typical cases, too fresh to need detailed reference, may be briefly summarized. Against the Kentish Town pickets of the Pianoforte, Harmonium, and American Organ Society, and the Amalgamated Society of French Polishers, Mr. Wernam (piano manufacturer), about February last, was awarded £300, and Mr. Lester, his foreman, £20, in compensation for unlawful, malicious interference with their business. (Lord Bramwell, it may be remarked parenthetically, once defined "malicious " as "without lawful excuse.") The appeal to the Higher Court was dismissed.

In Dublin, in March, the Secretary of the Dock Labourers' Union seems to have caused the dismissal from his employment of a recalcitrant member of the Union who had joined a rival organization. The magistrate, however, held that neither the language used nor the act done came within the meaning of the word "intimidation" in the 7th section of the Act of 1785, and dismissed the case, but would not give

costs.

In May five journeymen tailors at Leeds were fined heavy sums, and one of them was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for ruffianly "intimidation" during the Jewish tailors' strike.

The Stipendiary Magistrate of Birmingham, Mr. Colmore, in June, sentenced a brass polisher to

fourteen days' imprisonment (remarking that a fine was useless in such cases) for having intimidated another brass polisher, with a view to preventing him from working for Messrs. Evans and Co., who had incurred the ill-will of the Workmen's Association by refusing to join a trade alliance. At Southwark

a farrier was fined, including costs, £7 14s. for intimidating two non-union farrriers in Blackfriars during the recent strike.

Finally, it need only be mentioned that charges of trade union intimidation during the present engineering dispute (which commenced in July, 1897) have been dealt with at Southwark, Greenwich, Woolwich, and other London Police Courts, and at Birmingham, Leeds, etc., and that the defendants have in some cases been leniently bound over, in others committed-but not always with hard labour-for seven days, twenty-one days, and, in one case at least, to one month's imprisonment, and in other cases fined sums varying from 10s. to £4, with costs. As in several instances Appeals have been lodged, we shall probably hear more of some of the

cases.

To show the prevailing magisterial tone throughout the country, it is sufficient to record a few of the remarks uttered within the last week or two by the Stipendiary Magistrates in delivering their decisions :

Mr. T. H. Colmore (Birmingham) said that intimidation was used by the defendant for the purpose of inducing complainant to leave his work, and he should therefore convict; and as he had invariably held that a

fine was no punishment in such cases, the defendant would have to go to goal for fourteen days without hard labour.

Mr. Paul Taylor (Greenwich) agreed to a suggestion that the men should be bound over, remarking that conduct such as that the defendants were charged with could not be tolerated in a free country. If they had a grievance, they could express it; but resorting to intimidation constituted an offence which the law regarded as very serious, and for which heavy penalties were imposed. There was nothing he more disliked than to send a respectable man to prison, but if magistrates failed to do so in such cases, men would be unable to give effect to their right to dispose of their labour as they liked.

Mr. Kennedy (Woolwich) said that interfering with workmen getting their living would not be tolerated in this country. If serious injury had been inflicted, he would have visited it with imprisonment. He fined the defendant £4 and 2s. costs, or one month. On another occasion Mr. Kennedy remarked that there was a good deal of intimidation abroad, and refused bail.

Mr. De Rutzen (West London), in pronouncing his decision in the cases arising out of the strike at Messrs. Thornycroft's, said: "I am not called upon to say anything about trade unions or strikes. Every man may refuse to work if he thinks he can get on better without it. But there is an Act of Parliament called the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, and I suppose that there is no Act of Parliament which is better known

to working men. From the card containing instructions to members picketing, which was handed to me yesterday, I am satisfied that every one of you men knew perfectly well what you might do and what you might not do......Life would be absolutely unbearable if men were habitually followed in the way you unionists have pursued these non-unionists. Long experience has convinced me that it is useless to impose a fine upon men who are acting under the orders of a union. The fine is invariably paid by the union, leaving no kind of personal responsibility upon the individual who commits the wrongful act. The only way to punish you is by sending you to prison, and I therefore order each of you to be imprisoned for twenty-one days."

Mr. Stansfield (Leeds) concurred in the remarks of his brother magistrates by stating that to attempt to prevent a man from going to his work was absolutely the most wicked thing one workman could do to another......It was, in his opinion, such a wicked thing that the infliction of a fine would not be the proper way to meet it, and if personal violence had been used the defendant would have had to go to prison with hard labour. As it was, he would have to go to prison for fourteen days.

These instances tend to suggest a conclusion that the employers engaged in the present engineering dispute have at least no cause for recrimination against the Bench; but it must be remembered that, from an employer's point of view, the difficulty is not the operation of the law, once it is set in motion, and in flagrant