VI. THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION IN

ENGLAND.

(a) A Summary of English Legislation during the Century.

THE Royal Commission appointed in 1824 to inquire into the condition of the labour laws resulted, in 1825, in the Act of 6 Geo. IV., c. 129. Section 3 of this Act enacts as follows:

Any person who, with a view to compel journeymen to leave their employment, or to return work unfinished, or to prevent their hiring themselves, or to force them to belong to trade clubs, or to pay fines, or to force any other person to alter the mode of carrying on his business

1. Uses violence to person or property; or

2. Threats or intimidation; or

3. Who molests or in any way obstructs such

journeyman or other person,

shall, upon conviction, be liable to a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour."

In 1859, 22 Vict., c. 34, was passed, which enacted that a combination of workmen which, by peaceable and reasonable means, and without threat or intimida

tion, direct or indirect, attempts to raise the rate of wages, or shorten the hours of labour, etc., shall not be deemed to molest or obstruct within the above section.

In 1871 was passed a statute .which repealed 6 Geo. IV., c. 129. Section 1 of this Repeal Act may be summarized as follows:

Any person who shall do any of the following acts, i.e.:

1. Use violence to any person or property.

2. Threaten or intimidate any person in such manner as would justify a Justice of the Peace, on complaint before him, to bind over such person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace. 3. Molest or obstruct any person in manner defined in this section with a view to coerce such person (in furtherance, that is, of trade disputes), shall be liable, upon conviction, to a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, with or without hard. labour. A person for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to molest or obstruct another person in any of the following cases :

(i.) If he persistently follows, or

(ii.) Hides tools, etc., of, or

(iii.) Watches or besets, such other person.

Provided that no person shall be liable to any punishment for conspiracy on the ground of restraint of trade, unless he commits one of the offences hereinbefore specified, with the object of coercing as hereinbefore mentioned.

In 1875 The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 28 and 39 Vict., c. 90, was passed. To sections 3 and 7 of this Act we have already referred in

detail.

(b) Legal Procedure.

According to Mr. R. J. N. Neville, in his concise pamphlet on "Strikes,” issued in 1890, the following is a short summary of procedure under the Conspiracy Act. The tribunal appointed by the Act is primarily that of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but in certain cases, at the option of the accused, the offence may be tried on indictment before a jury. If the accused elect to be tried by jury, the complainant should ordinarily be asked whether he wishes to prosecute, for the Legislature has not thought fit to allow him costs of the prosecution, and therefore he should not be compelled to prosecute against his will, except under very exceptional circumstances. If he elect to prosecute, the Court then proceeds to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a committal. If the Court commit the accused for trial, the warrant of commitment must be carefully framed so as to show the jurisdiction of the Court to commit for trial by reason of the defendant's objection to the summary disposal of the case. The committal will, in general, be for trial at the Quarter Sessions. An appeal lies to a Court of Quarter Sessions against any conviction made under this Act by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; such appeal is final. A case may be applied for and stated on any point of law arising on

any information under the Act pursuant to 20 and 21 Vict., c. 43 (1857).

The net result of no costs being obtainable is well put by Mr. J. E. Davis in his work, "Labour Laws":"The complainant will not like the idea of a prosecution conducted entirely at his own expense, and will, therefore, avoid that probable contingency by not incurring the preliminary cost and loss of time of an information and summons. On the other hand, an accused person will doubtless exercise his privileges of objecting to the justices' jurisdiction for one or other of the following reasons: (1) an honest desire to be tried by a jury; (2) the belief that the complainant will in consequence decline to prosecute; (3) to avoid the complainant's costs in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and immediate imprisonment; (4) to vex and harass the complainant, toward whom he has already done an intentional wrong."

It should be added that the process by which criminal proceedings are commenced before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is termed an information. It need not be in writing, though it is advisable for the protection of the justice issuing the summons that it should be. After the information has been laid, a summons is generally issued, and in default of appearance a warrant to apprehend.

The Labour Commission, in its Report, thus summarizes the right of civil action :—

"It can hardly be denied that conduct of the kind referred to in the cases of Gibson v. Lawson

and Curran v. Treleaven, although held not to be intimidation liable to penal consequences within the meaning of the Act of 1875, may inflict great hardship upon employers, and still more upon nonunionist workmen, who may very possibly, in some cases, practically be deprived of employment unless they consent to join associations of which they disapprove. The question arises whether any civil remedy remains to the employer or non-unionist workman. It must be observed that, although the Act of 1875 exempts conduct which does not amount to intimidation, in the same sense which the Courts give to intimidation, from penal consequences, it leaves untouched the right, if any, of persons injured by such conduct to bring civil actions to recover damages. It may be true that, even where the employer or non-unionist workman may have the civil remedy referred to, that remedy may yet in many cases be practically valueless. Although the discharge of the workman from employment may be due to decisions taken by a trade union, and consequent action by some official on its behalf, the trade union cannot be sued, nor can damages be recovered from its collective funds. In the recent case of Temperton v. Russell and others, the plaintiff, who carried on business as a builder, sued the officers of three trade unions, 'as well on their own behalf as on the behalf of and representing all the members of each of the said societies and joint committees to which they