Mr. Forsyth made a feeble attempt to remedy that particular
defect in the "Conspiracy and Protection of Property Bill" on which we have frequently insisted, namely, that a conspiracy to break a contract may be so infinitely more dangerous than the breach of contract itself by isolated individuals, that the same class of remedies is not applicable to the two cases. But Mr. Forsyth's attempt hardly deserved success, and certainly did not attain it. He proposed to insert in the fifth clause words making it an offence under the clause for a workman to cause an employer "serious pecuniary loss" by his wilful or malicious default. The objection to this proposal, of course, was that it reintroduced the old class-distinctions which it was the chief object of the changes proposed by Mr. Lowe to abolish,—in other words, that it would have punished a breach of contract by workmen which caused "serious pecuniary loss" to employers, but would not have punished a breach of contract by employers which caused "serious pecuniary loss" to workmen. Mr. Cross resisted the amendment, and it was rejected without a division.
Previous page
