economic effects induced by the growth of collective bargaining. Strikes accompany it. But, again, movements such as voluntary conciliation and arbitration, co-operation, profit-sharing, have sprung up as a natural check upon strikes. Collective bargaining brings serious evils in its train, and their influences have to be weighed before deciding whether the Legislature can justifiably recognise it as a legitimate system. On the other hand, cases like this of Messrs. Bailey demand some urgent relaxation of the statutory restrictions of 1871. But the most powerful argument in favour of giving collective action legal collective responsibility is the sentimental whine of the Labour Commission trade unionists, Messrs. Abraham, Austin, Mawdsley, and Mann, embodied in their Minority Report :

"To.expose," they say, "the large amalgamated societies of the country, with their accumulated funds, sometimes reaching a quarter of a million sterling, to be sued for damages by any employer in any part of the country, or by any discontented member or non-unionists, for the action of some branch secretary or delegate, would be a great injustice. If every trade union were liable to be perpetually harassed by actions at law on account of the doings of individual members; if trade union funds were to be depleted by lawyers' fees and costs, if not even by damages or fines, it would go far to make trade unionism impossible for any but the most prosperous and experienced artizans."

In other words, it would entirely remove the means of livelihood from the professional agitator, and utterly annihilate the chances of such insolent interference in an employer's concerns as is typified in the Penrhyn strike.

A paper urging a definite legislative expression of the legal rights and responsibilities of trade unionism could not but be incomplete without a reference to the important test case of Allen v. Flood, now under consideration by the House of Lords. In this suit the appellant, Allen, is the London District delegate of the Boilermakers' Union, and the respondents, Flood and Taylor, are shipwrights and non-society men. The two latter, in 1894, undertook some ironwork on an iron ship. Such work performed by shipwrights is apparently a breach of the peculiar etiquette pertaining to trade unionism; it is, according to their intricate "demarcation" rules, work reserved for unionist boilermakers only. Subsequently, when these shipwrights were engaged on repair work on a ship lying in the Regent's Dock at Millwall, Allen-in revenge, as the Courts have now decided-took it upon himself to interview the managing director of the Glengall Iron Company, the shipwrights' employers, and to insist on their dismissal, threatening, on non-compliance, to "call out" all the members of the union. On their dismissal Flood and Taylor, by action against Allen in the Queen's Bench Division, were awarded £20 damages each. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the trade unionists consequently carried Allen's case to the Lords.

From this sketch of the case it will be seen that indirectly involved is the precise interpretation to be put upon the word "intimidation." The Judges of the Supreme Court, whom the House of Lords summoned to hear the re-arguing of the case in March last, a short time since delivered their judgment. On the immediate issue before them-viz., whether, when a man is discharged by an employer, owing to a threat of a strike being made if he is kept at work, the discharged man has any claims against the person who makes the representations against him-the majority decided that he has. The following ten judges-Mr. Justice Kennedy (who tried the case originally), the Master of the Rolls (Lord Esher), and Lords Justices Lopes (now Lord Ludlow) and Rigby, forming the Court of Appeal, and Justices Hawkins, Cave, Wills, Grantham, and Lawrence (all of the Queen's Bench Division), and Mr. Justice Worth (of the Chancery Division)-have thus decided against the unionists. The two minority are Justices Mathew and Wright.

The following weighty words of Sir Henry Hawkins are well worth placing on record: "In this country every man who honestly endeavours to earn his livelihood by his trade or occupation is entitled to do so free from any molestation or hindrance, and anyone who interferes with him, as the appellant has done, without just cause or excuse, does him a wrong which is actionable."

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Lords will accept the advice of the ten judges and endorse their

opinions. In that case it will be practically rendered illegal for a delegate, at the instigation of his union, to induce an employer to dismiss a non-society man; such action will be legally (as it is morally) malicious, and free labour will have a just protection by the law and a new weapon to wield against trade union tyranny.

There are, however, in conjunction with this point, the chief one, two very important dependent incidents affecting free labour. The original case decided that the members of a trade union, as represented by the president and secretary, are not liable for the action of a district delegate. This decision needs carrying to Appeal and revising. If the Legislature accepts the principle that an employer is liable for all injuries inflicted by his servants in the conduct of his business, it is not too much to ask the Legislature to lay down as specific law the principle that the chief officers and directors of a trade union are liable for the acts of their subordinates in connection with the union. This is especially necessary for the protection of the person, as in the case of picketing with violence.

The other point is the question of the recovery of damages. We have already seen how, in Bailey v. Pye, an infinitesimal percentage only has been obtained. For the consideration of Parliament during the next Session we would strongly advise a Bill (1) giving expression to the decision we anticipate from the Lords, (2) rendering trade unions liable to the extent above indicated, and (3) allowing a more or less lengthy period of imprisonment with hard labour (which will give district delegates and other

rogues a pleasant and healthy change-pleasant for the community, healthy for them), in default of the payment in full of the damages a trade union defendant is called upon to pay for his fun. Bankruptcy proceedings are obviously not sufficiently summary.

Such legislation, supplementing the definite proposals we have made with regard to picketing, will probably be found a workable substitute for the elaborate proposals which have been advanced in some quarters to give trade associations a corporate standing.

Legislative action is on principle to be deplored. It is the last resort for absolute necessity. We cannot too strongly urge freedom of individual contract, and to this end we welcome an attempt at voluntary solution by the formation of a National Employers' Association to show if possible, and by the simple means of turning the coercive weapons of trade unionism against itself, that the real management of the country's commerce and business is in the hands of the employers, and not in the hands of trade union officials, spurious or lawful. Such an Association will show the workmen that their best friend is the employer, and that it is a foolish policy to throw up £100 worth of wages to starve on a £20 subsistence allowance because a rowdy, brazen-lunged agitator has ordered it.

To prevent any possible misunderstanding on the question of trade union combination, it will be sufficient to endorse the views contained in the Times' leading article on the settlement of the Penrhyn Quarry dispute. In that dispute the right of combination was never in