THE RECENT TRIAL FOR TRADE CONSPIRACY.
THE trial of the Cabinetmakers at the Central Criminal Court which took place on Wednesday and Thursday of last week adds another to the several important Trade protean- tions for conspiracy which have taken place within the lest few years. The two of most importance before this recent ease
of the Queen against Hibbert and others have been tried at Manchester, and therefore have attracted less public attention than either the Gas Stokers' case or this last Cabinetmakers' case. The principle upon which the two provincial cases were decided was the well-known principle of Lord Denman viz., that a combination to obtain an unlawful end, or a lawful end by unlawful means, is illegal. A breach of contract is an unlawful end, and coercion of a man's freedom of will is an unlawful means according to the present interpretation of law- yers. The latter of these two cases therefore raised the ques- tion of what is coercion by the Common Law of England, a question which yet remains to be satisfactorily answered. This same question seems also to have been raised on Wednes- day by the prosecution, but to have been dropped, for the easier question whether an offence had been committed against the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871. This Act is divided in a way which makes an intelligible reference
almost impossible, but the portion against which the Cabinet- makers seem to have offended was section 1, part 3, sub-sections 1 and 3, combined with part 1, second sub-section 1. The Jury
found upon the evidence laid before them that the Defendants
had conspired to molest the masters and the Avorkmen, by persistently following such workmen from place to place, and
by watching or besetting the place where the masters carried on business, or the approach to such place of business, in order to coerce the workmen into quitting their employment, and the masters into altering their method of business. The question therefore was one fairly simple in its nature, namely, whether the workmen who disliked the piece system which Messrs. Jackson and Graham had introduced at their Ogle-street factory, in place of the time system, and who congregated round the
gates of the factory endeavouring to make the men who were at work quit their employers' service, had combined to do a lawful act by unlawful means, namely, against the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act? There can be little doubt that under the provisions of this Act the Jury were right in their decision, and the Judge correct in his direction as to the law. There had been a following-about and watching of the premises within the meaning of the Act, with the inten- tion of compelling the masters to alter their mode of business, and of making the workmen cease work under the piece system. The words of the Act, "With a view to coerce," obviously have reference to the actions which amount to molestation, which are also enumerated in the Act ; and it is therefore perfectly legi- timate to say that, as you cannot persuade a man by watching his premises, you must be coercing or compelling him to adopt your view. In other words, under these statutory provisions, "persistently following men from place to place," watching or besetting a place of business, if the object be also one of those mentioned in the statute, is to be considered illegal coercion, and punishable accordingly.
But as regards the actual facts, it is clear that the de- fendants conducted themselves with peacefulness, and the only acts which approached to threats or acts of coercion, strictly speaking, were telling one of the men that he would be con- sidered a "black," or "black sheep," or "be blacked," which merely meant that he would be considered as not conforming to Union rules. It also seems that another or others were told they would not get employment in future, should they con- tinue to work with Messrs. Jackson and Graham. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that nothing morally wrong was done by the defendants, nor is there any reason to suppose that the plea that the defendants believed they were acting lawfully is untrue. To coerce must mean to compel a man by actual bodily violence, or verbal threats of illegal or morally wrong acts, to do something against his will. But it is impossible to say that to tell one man that if he works in a certain way he will no longer be a member of the Union is coercion, ordinarily speaking. Again, to declare that he will get no future employment is to aver a fact which may or may not turn out true, but which is one the value of which the reasoning powers of the person addressed must judge. To declare that unless a workmen quits a certain service he will be prevented by bodily force from entering any future service would certainly be coercion. Try this case by a further test. If the workmen employed by Messrs. Jackson and Graham had turned round on the defendants by following them about after hours, and declaring that unless they returned to their former employers they would induce all the employers to pay by the piece system, would this be coercion I Clearly not. It is very obvious, therefore, that the Criminal Law Amendment Act is proved by this late prosecution, and the sentence which Baron Cleasby inflicted, to need amendment in the shape of a clearer definition of the term " coercion " by
workmen. Workmen too often fancy they have grievances when they have not, but here they clearly seem to have a just cause of offence. Some part of these Labour Laws is de- Bitable on every ground, it is therefore more to be wished that what is wrong in them should be changed, otherwise the good parts will come in for wholesale condemnation with the bad por- tions. Many of these labour offences border so closely on the dividing-line between what is and what is not legitimate inter- ference by workmen with fellow-workmen and employers, that there is the greatest need for broad and clear definition, How- ever, any amendment will require great care and attention, so as to avoid too great strictness or too great laxity with regard to trade offences. But some measure at once clear, large, and just ought quickly to take the place of the present Criminal Law Amendment Act, so as to confine within itself all ques- tions of offences by workmen. The present unsatisfactory state of the law, in spite of laissez-faire articles in the Times, is neither good for the interest of employers nor employed. No one denies that the subject is one of great nicety and diffi- culty, but that is no reason why it should be avoided.
Previous page
