COERCION AND TRADE-UNIONS.
IN his speech at the National Liberal Club on Saturday last, Mr. Gladstone made a statement as to the effect of the Crimes Bill which he has made on several previous occasions. It was, put shortly, that the Bill would place the Irish tenant in a position as regards his right to combine, worse than that of the English artisan. After mentioning that the question was at one time "complicated and darkened by being mixed up with arguments on the peculiarities of the position of the tenant," Mr. Gladstone went on to say :—" But my honourable and learned friend, Sir Charles Russell, the late Attorney-General, got rid of all those difficulties and ambiguities at an early stage in the Bill by asking the Govern- ment whether they would agree to give to the Irish occupier, not in respect to purchase, bat in respect to contract, in respect to the liberty of open dealing—dealing which has always been a civil and not a criminal matter—whether they would give to the Irish occupier the same protection that they gave to the English artisan, and the answer given by Mr. Balfour was that they would not give it ; and it stands, therefore, as recorded beyond the possibility of doubt and denial, that in matters of civil and not criminal jurisdiction—that in those matters where even only a contract is involved, where the Statute Law of England has given protection to the whole artisan class of England, that same protection, and neither more nor less, has been denied to the agricultural occupying population of Ireland." This somewhat intricate sentence is, we suppose, intended to convey the impression that there has been some unfairness, some lack of justice and of equality, in the way in which the new law will affect combinations in Ireland, and that under it Irishmen will be less free to combine than Englishmen.
If it is difficult to attach any very definite meaning to Mr. Gladstone's words quoted above, it is still more difficult to discover what is the precise action taken, or question put, by Sir Charles Russell during an early stage of the Bill to which Mr. Gladstone refers. On May 19th, Sir Charles Russell moved an amendment of a very technical character, to the effect that in Clause 2 of the Bill, the words " take part in any criminal conspiracy" should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words "conspire by violence or intimidation." We must suppose, however, that it is not this motion and debate which Mr. Gladstone means, but rather one made at a later stage by Sir Charles Russell, which the Leader of the Opposition described in his speech on the third reading of the Crimes Bill as "an amendment providing that no person or persons doing any of the things mentioned in the clause should be chargeable with conspiracy in respect of any such act, unless such act would, if done by one person alone, be punishable as a crime." A little before this allusion to the late Attorney-General's motion, Mr. Gladstone, however, put his meaning pretty clearly. He said :—" I say that in England, Scotland, and Wales, any man is free to induce as much as he likes, and to combine with others in inducing other persons ' not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation.'" " These," concludes Mr. Gladstone, "are rights of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welsh- men, which you are going to deny to Irishmen."
Leaving aside for the moment Mr. Gladstone's strange obiter dictum on the subject of conspiracy at Common Law, and putting together the above quotations, we are sorely not mis- representing Mr. Gladstone when we say that his charge against the supporters of the Bill is that they are by law taking away from the Irish tenant that power of striking which is allowed by the law to the English artisan. The English labourer may strike against low wages, the Irish tenant may not strike against high rent. This is the point Mr. Gladstone has persuaded himself into raising as a wise, states- manlike, and reasonable proposition. Yet, in fact, it is utterly
untenable,—an argument based on the falsest of false analogies, and obviously untenable the moment it is looked into. Let us see where it carries us. In the first place, let us leave out of sight for the moment the fact that the National League, when it orders a boycott, or when it starts the " Plan of Cam- paign," is acting mainly for political motives, and let us assume that the English Trade-Union and the National League are each working for the same object,—the greatest pecuniary advantages for their members. Mr. Pitt Lewis, the well- known Queen's Counsel, in an able and interesting paper on this subject, has lately pointed out how they severally pursue this object, and how the means employed justify the law in protecting the one and in putting down the other. A Trade-Union determines that certain contracts entered into by its members are not advantageous to them, and that they must be put an end to. To attain this object, it gives notice that after a certain date, no work will be done and that no new contracts shall be made by its members, except on advanced terms. The contracts which exist at the time are, however, carried out till their time is expired, and the masters have full and complete notice of what are the new terms at which the men will work. What is the analogous action of the National League B The tenants on a particular estate, who are members of the League, have hired their land from a land- lord under certain contracts. The League considers these contracts bad for the tenants. Instead, however, of ordering its members not to enter into any more such contracts, and to give notices putting an end to those that exist, it simply determines that the existing contracts shall be forthwith broken. In the case of a Trade-Union, if the threat of entering into no contracts, unless at advanced rates, does not succeed, and an open rupture takes place between the employers and the workmen, the Union simply contents itself with withdrawing from the master the benefit of the labour of its members. The National League, on the other hand, confiscates the property of the landlord, and by threats and actual violence prevents him from exercising his legal rights upon it. While the Trade-Union raises its funds by subscriptions among its members, the National League, when conducting what it pretends is only a strike, takes into its hand the rent that belongs to the landlord, and with the funds thus obtained conducts its struggle. It is indeed strange that people can find any kind of analogy between these two methods of procedure. The real analogy to the " Plan of Campaign" would be a look-out by a combination of masters who dis- missed their men without notice, and who, owing, say, a week's wages to their employes, instead of paying them, carried the wages to a special fund set apart for the purpose of contesting any claim the men might bring for breach of contract or money due for work done. It would not, however, suit the Gladstonians to recognise this similarity. It is curious to sec into what practical difficulties the weakness of their false analogy brings them. It is all very well to use it rhetorically,
but in practice it is of little use. For instance, the Crimes Act expressly declares that no interference shall take place under it with Trade-Unions. When confronted with this provision, the Gladstonians have, therefore, to declare that it is no good, because the National League is not a Trade-Union ; and yet a moment before they only wished to put it on the same basis as English Trade-Unions. As a matter of fact, no change could be devised to bolster up com- binations under the League of the kind allowed to Trade- Unions, for the League works by intimidation, and the Trade- Unions by legal means. The Act regulating Trade-Unions has most stringent provisions directed against "every person who, with a view to compel any other person, to abstain from doing, or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority," uses violence or intimidation, persistently follows such person, watches or besets his house, follows such person with two or more persons in any street or road, or in any other way molests him. Such provisions would hardly suit the men who set sentries to write down the names of every one who visits a country grocer, as was done in the case of Mr. Hegarty at Millstreet.
If any further evidence is needed to show the difference between the English and the Irish combinations, it can be found in the rules of the great English Trade Societies. Those of the Amalgamated Carpenters, lately quoted in an evening newspaper as indicating the reasonable and orderly temper in which that body is worked, were evidently drafted with the keenest possible desire to keep the Union and its members in the strictest bonds of legality.
Previous page
