that wrong inflict upon them damage, perhaps to the amount of many thousand pounds, and yet not be liable to make redress out of those funds, would be a state of things opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice' (p. 8).

From the course that the argument has taken, it is obvious that the question of agency is of very great importance. Trade-unions have their branches and their officials; and the majority Report recommends that the central executive should be given means whereby they can protect themselves against unauthorised and immediately disavowed actions of branch agents. Sir Godfrey Lushington, whose impartiality and knowledge of the subject will not be questioned, expresses the opinion that this is unnecessary. It would be impracticable, he thinks, to allow any private association to frame rules which would exempt its officials from the control of the ordinary law of the land. Agency is not a matter to be determined by rules, but by the general circumstances of the case. We do not know how this deadlock can be resolved. It seems inevitable that the determination to depart from the impersonal arbitrament of the free market, however necessary this attitude may be thought for the well-being of those asserting the right, must involve such dissentients in a struggle with the civilising influence of the law.

The question is also raised whether it would be possible to exempt the provident funds of trade-unions (there is a difference of opinion as to how far the out-ofwork funds come under this head) from liability incurred in the course of a labour dispute. The proposal, we understand, does not meet with favour from tradeunionists, who prefer to have their whole resources available, when necessary, for the prosecution of disputes in which they may from time to time be involved. In many, we believe in most, unions the funds are massed, and only become 'provident' when they are not required for the other purpose. In the view of general equity, Sir Godfrey Lushington puts the matter thus:

'Thrift is a good object; but thrift comes after payment of just debts, and, certainly not least, debts incurred in consequence of wrong-doing to others. . . . That workmen should collectively do wrong, and be able to refuse to those who Vol. 204.-No. 407. 2 K

have suffered from such wrong any reparation out of the funds they have collectively saved for their own use and benefit, is contrary to justice' (p. 71).

Next, as to the question of picketing. We have already quoted the strong and unanimous opinion of the Commission. The majority, however, believe that the oppressive action of picketing would be sufficiently struck at if the sub-section of the 7th section of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which prohibits 'watching and besetting,' were relaxed and made to restrain the person who 'acts in such a manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of any person that violence will be used to him or his family or damage be done to his property.' Relying on the above-quoted general condemnation of picketing as necessarily a coercive proceeding, Sir G. Lushington and Sir W. Lewis protest against this concession. The proposal made by Mr Whittaker's Bill was to legalise picketing for the purpose of 'peacefully obtaining and communicating information and peacefully persuading'-a wider concession which the Commission unanimously condemns.

The third point of those enumerated, which has engaged the lengthened consideration of the Commission, is the law of conspiracy. By section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, trade-unionists were put in a favoured and exceptional position.

'An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime' (p. 13).

The section excludes indictments for conspiracy, but leaves unaffected the civil remedy for conspiracy. It is now suggested by the majority Report, and with some reservation by Sir G. Lushington, that the policy of the Act of 1875 requires to be completed by exempting such actions from civil liability also. Sir William Lewis dissents, on the ground that the fact of an immunity from criminal liability in respect of acts which in other persons would be criminal is no argument for an extension of exceptional treatment in respect of civil liability.

Of necessity the law of conspiracy is very complicated. The nature of the law and of the protection which it is designed to give to the community is very well illustrated by an obiter dictum which occurs in the majority Report. Disclaiming any right to question the policy of existing Acts of Parliament, the Commissioners express a doubt, in connexion with the above-quoted section 3, whether in truth an act done by a combination of persons can ever be the same as an act done by one.' The commonsense justification of a law of conspiracy is that it takes cognisance of the changed aspect of actions when they are done in combination. The demand, which on the face of it seems reasonable and plausible enough, that the law of conspiracy should be made clear and definite, is really attended with much difficulty. As the Report points out, the law of conspiracy is a valuable preservative of order; and modern times have shown that there are certain forms of oppression, generally known as boycotting, which can scarcely be met except by its aid.'

In this connexion, and to show how many interests are involved, it is worth while to note that, according to the speech of the president of the Trade-Union Congress, 1905, as a result of negotiation with the Irish party, the council are under an obligation to submit to this Congress the question of including in their next Bill words which will cover the conspiracy laws as affecting Irish agricultural organisations.' This proposal to obtain, by a side wind, immunity for political associations like the Irish Land League is a sinister, but still a logical development of the policy proclaimed. A codification of the law of conspiracy, it is sometimes suggested, might in effect be nothing more than a help to evasion for combinations anxious to escape liability for coercive persecution of their neighbours.

Notwithstanding these apparently irreconcilable differences, there are signs that in practice a more conciliatory attitude is being adopted. Negotiations between the unions and the employers are probably now more harmoniously conducted than they ever were. Many schemes for the automatic adjustment of wages have been tried, and some of them have worked satisfactorily. Most of these turn to some extent on the price obtained for the manufactured product of the industry concerned. Any scheme,

even one for settling differences by 'tossing up,' is preferable to a dispute involving suffering and loss through an extended circle. It still remains, however, that the price of the product and the profit of the manufacturer have nothing to do, economically speaking, with the price of labour. All sound extension of industry such as is beneficial to the community at large involves a steady demand, and this in its turn, by the operation of the simplest laws of competition, involves a reduction of interest and profits. These favourable conditions cause, and are further stimulated by, a cheapening of products. It appears to us, therefore, that plans which make it to the interest of the workman to keep up prices and profits or to restrict output are bound in the long run to prove detrimental to his interests. A continuous rise in the value of his services is assured to him by the versatility and mobility characteristic of modern labour, if we take a survey of its distribution over any lengthened period. It is not, of course, possible to transfer large numbers of adult labourers from one trade to another; but the supply is largely affected by the yearly recruitment of the young; and if, as we argue, the distributory force of the market is the factor on which depends the ascent of labour, it is a condition to be fostered and encouraged rather than thwarted and rendered feeble by over-regulation.

We are disposed to doubt if the ideal form of contract between employer and employed has yet been evolved. Arbitration and conciliation are admirable things, even when they are based on unstable foundations; but for the reasons given we cannot regard the more familiar forms of automatic wage-scales, depending as they do on economically irrelevant facts, as altogether satisfactory. We are disposed to look in other directions for more hopeful developments.

Trade-unions have ceased to be proletariat institutions; and it is when men begin to realise the value of their liberty and their property that they grow more ready to respect the similar rights of their neighbours. It is suggested in the Report, very wisely, as it seems to us, that trade-unions should be given additional powers for entering into contracts. The claim to a monopoly of employment in a given industry, or in a given piece of work, can only be obtained by a specific contract with

the employers, who supply the plant and material and direction. It would be unreasonable to prevent unionists from making a collective bargain to supply labour on terms favourable to themselves. They can give what is now too often withheld from captains of industry, cheerful and energetic co-operation, encouraged thereto by equitable terms of agreement. They have capital at their disposal; opportunity might be made for them to share the greater security and profit which is supposed to be reserved for the capitalist. If, for the purposes of practical discussion, we exclude schemes for the nationalisation of the instruments of production-the chimerical proposal which is passed with a contemptuous unanimity at trade-union congresses-any true scheme for the protection of labour must include methods for facilitating the conversion of the proletariat into a property-owning class. It is absurd to suppose that in this twentieth century the mere willingness and ability to labour-a condition which after all extends only over a brief portion of a man's life-are sufficient to enable him to live the civilised life. Some capitalisation, made on his behalf, by his own favourite association, would supply a solution of more than one pressing difficulty of the workman's life. Such a solution would be in accordance with a principle of whose pacific guidance human nature has shown itself receptive, and would rescue industrial society from methods of private warfare as well as from the alternative suggested by Mr Webb-the complete regulation of labour by the socialist State.

The financial power of the trade-unions is great; their political power is even greater; and noblesse oblige. We are not without hope that moderation will prevail. If the fierce searchlight which is being thrown from so many quarters on the principle which, after all, is the basis of a civilisation not altogether bad, should enable us to take a juster and better proportioned view of the good and evil which it contains, this controversy and this deadlock may prove to be a blessing in disguise.

This, however, is taking a long view. Meanwhile, with the introduction of the Government Trade Disputes Bill, the controversy is removed still farther from a solution. Sir J. Lawson Walton, in the course of his speech, quoted with approval the remarks of Mr Burt