question, and in this book (and in this chapter in particular) such right has never been challenged. The employed as well as the employers have equal rights of combination, but no rights of wanton interference. We cordially agree with Mr. Young's letter of May 27th last, in which he expressly recognises the right of the workmen to act on the principle of "the cause of one being the cause of all," which, as the Times says, we take it, is the principle of combination in its broadest expression.

The sole cause of the dispute was the question of outside interference. In this particular instance picketing was not a feature of the dispute, but exactly the same principle was involved. The essential basis of picketing is interference. No apology is therefore needed for giving, in the words of the Times of Monday, August 23rd, 1897, a brief statement of the cause of the strike, and of its victorious ending in favour of Right :

"When the present Lord Penrhyn took over the management of the quarry, the union leaders had usurped a power in excess of what has just been described [right of combination]......their usurpation was curbed by the rules which Lord Penrhyn laid down, and to which he adheres, and......the struggle just ended has not been either for the right of combination or for any interest of the workmen at large, but for the regaining of the power of interference in the management of the property formerly possessed by the Quarry Committee. That committee, consisting, it need hardly be said, of union leaders, had arrogated to itself, and

has just been struggling again to arrogate to itself, the right to intercept all representations as to grievances which the men might wish to make to their employer, to veto such of them as it thought fit, and to prosecute such as might suit itself. In practice the result was, and would be again, that Lord Penrhyn was to a great extent superseded in the management of his own property by this irresponsible body which thrust itself between him and his workmen ; while, as regards the workmen themselves, no certain redress existed for such of them as did not choose to join the union and bow to the behests of its Executive. The first clause as it now stands, as it stood last May, as it stood last September, and as it has been worked for the last twelve years, gives every workman access to the local manager, with appeal to the general manager, and, finally, in cases of importance, to Lord Penrhyn himself. The clause gives the same access to any deputation of workmen so long as it bonâ fide represents a class that may either think itself aggrieved or may see fit to make the grievance of an individual its own. [How is it that so many daily papers, including, we regret to say, the Daily News, have deliberately denied the insertion of this clause in the agreement of August 18th? Surely leading articles on an important industrial matter. of this nature are not "written up" from mere chatter and unauthenticated sources ?] But it refuses to permit a standing committee of union.

leaders to constitute itself the sole medium of communication between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen, and to use that position to coerce the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other. The men can combine as they please, and the union can form as many Quarry Committees as it pleases. Lord Penrhyn has nothing to say against these proceedings, but he is determined that no Quarry Committee shall manage his quarry over his head, or, so far as he can prevent it, tyrannize over men who may not wish to place themselves under union dictation."

VIII.-A SUMMARY MEMORANDUM.

THE following Memorandum on Picketing may be said to fairly summarize the points we have endeavoured to bring out and to express concisely in the preceding pages :

MEMORANDUM ON PICKETING.

With Suggestions to Employers.

Under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, picketing as moral suasion is legal when its sole object is to obtain or communicate information.

This legality is, however, purely fictional, since in practice all picketing carried on during a strike inevitably exceeds peaceable conversation.

Picketing, therefore, becomes an indictable offence at common law, and such excesses are usually committed as should justify con

viction under the Police Act, or law dealing

with unlawful assembly.

Interim injunctions to restrain illegal threats to some extent destroy the power of trade unions as regards picketing.

But the difficulty, delay, and expense of putting the existing remedial machinery into motion renders existing law almost valueless to individual employers.

Further, the language of the Act of 1875 is left so uncertain--there being no authoritative definition of "intimidation "—that judicial decisions vary in different parts of the country, and justice can be impartially administered neither to employers nor to employed.

Although the law cannot punish black looks and rough words, the law can and should protect property and person, and should refrain from deliberately encouraging, by permitting inconsistency of interpretation, such looks and words.

Labour contracts should be held as inviolate as any other legal contracts.