THE RULE OF TOOTH AND CLAW.
THIS week the House of Commons have continued the discussion of what we must call the most amazing legislative proposal in our recollection. The issue between the supporters and the opponents of the Trade Disputes Bill is now clearly defined. On certain points—the merits of the work of Trade-Unions, the necessity of safeguarding their benevolent funds and of putting them out Of danger from the action of unauthorised agents—we are all agreed. For ourselves, we are prepared to defend Clauses I. and III. of the Government Bill, which amend in the interest of the Unions the law as to conspiracy and inter- ference with another's trade. Clause II., which legalises picketing if done " peaceably and in a reasonable manner," seems to us dangerous and disputable ; but it is a pro- vision which will be as embarrassing to the Unions as to those who suffer from them. It is Clause IV. that is the true storm-centre. "An action against a trade-union," so runs this remarkable section, "or any branch thereof, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade-union for the recovery of damages In respect of any tortious act alleged to have been com- mitted by or on behalf of the trade-union, shall not be entertained by any court." The clause may be badly drafted, but the intention is clear,—to raise combinations of labour and capital at all times and in all connexions above the law in regard to wrongful acts. Sir Edward Carson when the subject was last discussed in Parliament well summarised the object of the clause. "As regards torts committed by Trade-Unions, all the laws of the realm, whether statute or common, are hereby repealed." The most ancient and cherished principle of our English law and our English policy has been rejected ; in the most unabashed manner a sop has been thrown to the Trade-Unions, and that sop is the gift of legal sacro- sanctity. We confess that the Bill has profoundly dis- quieted us, not only because of its extravagant provisions, but because of the kind of argument by which in the last resort its Supporters attempt to justify it. Many Liberals admit that it is morally, legally, and politically indefensible, but add that it will do no harm, and that the Unions may be trusted to behave themselves. We do not believe that any body of men can be trusted to behave them- helves when they are given statutory inviolability, and to justify a bad measure by a pious hope that it may prove innocuous in practice is the negation of statesmanship and reason. Another defence is that it restores the statue quo ante the Taff Vale decision, and gives the Trade-Unions the privileges of other unincorporated bodies,—an argument Which is false in history, bad in law, and wrong in policy, since the immunity given by the absence of the machinery to sue (if such machinery were absent) is wholly different from the chartered immunity contemplated in the Bill. Finally, we have the amazing argument, which apparently has the support of Mr. Asquith, that in industrial war, which is a rough business, it is best to revert to the state of Nature, the rule of tooth and claw, and to let masters and. num fight it out without legal restraint. No comment of ours can do justice to the sagacity of such a plea. But in all the defence, as Professor Dicey has pointed out, we notice that the old English horror of privilege is wanting. Privilege, apparently, is right and natural if any class in the community is strong enough to claim it. It is not too much to say that such a feeling, if it ever became universal, would mean moral, political, and economic ruin.
As we have said before, we are not greatly concerned for the masters. They are very well able to look after themselves. The new policy will give them far more than it takes from them. But we would like to ask those Trade-Unionists who clamour for the Bill, and those Liberal defenders of it who thoughtlessly acquiesce in what seems to them a harmless concession, to consider what is involved in this extra-legal status which Labour and Capital alike are acquiring. We have on other owe, sions pointed out the tyranny which, with complete legal immunity, may be exercised by the Trade-Unions to compel the adherence of non-Unionists, who, remember, still represent the bulk of the labour of the country. We wish now to show what the combinations of masters may do if they please; both as against the public and the Trade- Unionists. During the past fortnight there has been a great, and in our opinion entirely justifiable, series of protests against the formation of a Soap Trust, which is to raise prices to the consumer and damage the retailer. None have been more active in sounding the alarm than the Liberal Press, which has given its benediction to thE Trade Disputes Bill. Granted that the idea of Trusts is abhorrent to us all, it is worth while asking whether or not their, formation will be assisted by the Bill and its egregious Clause IV.
Let us suppose that all the firms who manufacture, say, matches form a protective Trade-Union. In order that they may secure the benefits of the new Act, they do not register, but for all practical purposes they are a corporate body. Their main object is to look after their own interests as against the Matchmakers' Union ; but soon it occurs to their members that they may use their Union for trading purposes. Their interests are pooled, trustees are appointed to hold their capital under trust-deeds—there are a dozen Transatlantic precedents—and, without ceasing to be an unincorporated Trade-Union, they become also a vast Match Trust. Now, obviously such a Trust cannot control distribution under our present system of free imports and an impartial law. But under Clause IV. of the new Act it would have its chance. Its object is to compel every retailer in England to sell its goods and no other at its price and. at no other. If it can do this, it can nullify foreign competition. It therefore begins a gigantic system of boycott, molestation, and persecution. It employs a multitude of agents, individually poor men, who make life unbearable for the recalcitrant retail trader. He is libelled and slandered, his business is interfered with, his customers kept away by every means which is not actually criminal, until in the long run he capitulates. The public wakes one fine day to find that its matches have been cornered, and that in the future it must buy them from one producer and at one price. As the law stands at present, such a state of affairs could not come about. The amalgamation authorising this tortious policy would individually, and, in our view, also collectively, find itself liable for heavy damages for all the wrongful acts of its agents, and would speedily realise that it had entered on an ex- pensive game. But under the new Act agency dis- appears, and no Court can entertain an action against the Trust, which is also a Trade-Union. The unfor- tunate retailer may if he pleases sue the agent who molests him, but that agent as likely as not may have nothing to lose. The rich Trust which provides the sinews of war and arranges every detail of the policy can it bland and smiling, sacrificing an agent here and, an agent there, .till its purpose is fulfilled. It is true that the remedy of injunction remains ; but it is -a remedy far too cumbrous and uncertain to meet the difficulty. We challenge any advocate of the Bill to prove that such a state of things may not come about under its auspices. Of course, it may be said that English manufacturers will not do this sort of thing. If any one thinks so, let him continue in his belief and be happy. For ourselves, we see every reason to believe that in commercial war the law of tooth and claw is still a factor, and if it be confirmed by statute it is likely to be more potent than ever.
Let us take another instance of what may happen, also modelled on American precedents. The Trade-Union leaders may tyrannise over non-Unionist Labour ; but may they not themselves be tyrannised over ? A Union of employers has a document called the "black-list," on which the names of all workmen prominent in agitation are entered, with their portraits and dossiers appended. A prominent agitator finds himself dismissed by his employer for some cause or other. He goes to another firm in the same trade, and to another and another, and finds the same refusal to employ him. So long as he keeps to his present trade there is no employment for him in the country, and if he is engaged by accident, he is dismissed as soon as he is identified. Such is black-listing from the employer's point of view, which in America to-day is stated to be almost universal. The one remedy of the employed—to strike— is made impossible by the fact that, with a large black-list actively used, men would never be at work at all if they took to this form of championing another's cause. Under the new Act this device will be perfectly legal and possible in England, and as soon as relations become strained between workmen and masters we may be sure that it will be used. As we have often urged, the safeguard of Labour is the historic impartiality of the law. of England. If, on some blind and shallow view of its interests, it disregards this and claims a foolish privilege, it will most certainly go to the wall. For in a domain where the rule is the old one of tooth and claw Capital and Labour must fight on unequal terms.
Previous page
