APPENDIX.

DECISIONS ON REPEALED STATUTES RELATING TO

CONSPIRACY.

Right of Workmen to Agree as to Rate of Wages. In his charge to the grand jury at the Stafford Special Commission, 1843, Tindal, Č. J., said, 'The first observation that arises is that if the workmen of the several collieries and manufactories, who complained that the wages which they received were inadequate to the value of their services, had assembled themselves peaceably together for the purpose of consulting upon and determining the rate of wages or prices which the persons present at the meeting should require for their work, and had entered into an agreement amongst themselves for the purpose of fixing such rate, they would have done no more than the law allowed. A combination for that purpose and to that extent (if indeed it can be called by that name) is no more than is recognised as legal by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 129; by which statute also exactly the same right of combination, to the same extent and no further, is given to the masters when met together, if they are of opinion the rate of wages is too high. In the case supposed - that is, a dispute between the masters and the workmen as to the proper amount of wages to be given - it was probably thought by the legislature that if the workmen on the one part refused to work, or the masters on the other refused to employ, as such a state of things could not continue long, it might fairly be expected that the party must ultimately give way, whose pretensions were not founded in reason and justice, the masters if they offered too little, the workmen if they demanded too much. But, unfortunately for themselves and others, those who were discontented did not rest here. Not satisfied with the exercise of their own right to withhold their own labour, if they were discontented with the price they received for it, they assumed the power of interfering with the right which others possessed, of exercising their discretion upon the same point; and accordingly you will have numerous cases laid before you in which large bodies of dissatisfied workmen interfered by personal violence and by threats and intimidation, to compel others, who were perfectly willing to continue to labour in their callings at the rate of wages then paid to desist from their work, to leave the mine or manufactory, and against their own will to add themselves to the numbers of the discontented party; than which a more glaring act of tyranny and despotism by one set of men over their fellows cannot be conceived. If there is one right which, beyond all others, the labourer ought to be able to call his own, it is the right of the exertion of his own personal strength and skill, in the full enjoyment of his own free will, altogether unshackled by the control or dictates of his fellow-workmen; yet strange to say, this very right, which the discontented workman claims for himself to the fullest extent, he does, by a blind perversity and unaccountable selfishness, entirely refuse to his fellows who differ in opinion from himself. It is un

necessary to say, that a course of proceeding so entirely unreasonable in itself, so injurious to society, so detrimental to the interest of trade, and so oppressive against the rights of the poor man, must be a gross and flagrant violation of the law, and must be put down, when the guilt is established, by a proper measure of punishment.' (a)

Right of Masters to Agree as to Rate of Wages. The defendants were indicted for a conspiracy to impoverish partners in their trade and business as ironfounders, and for a conspiracy to prevent them from taking into their service journeymen and apprentices, &c.; Rolfe, B., told the jury that, 'Those who are to employ labour may meet and say, "We will not give more than such and such a rate, or we will stipulate for such and such number of hours' work; we will make, in short, regulations beneficial to ourselves as employers, and we agree that we will not take any workmen that require more." On the other hand, the workmen may meet and say, "We will not work for less than such and such sums, and if anybody thinks to employ us on low wages we will agree we will not work for them, and we agree to form a fund and support one another until we get them to come to proper terms."(b) That being the law, the market in that, as in all other things, will find its own level, and what the value of that labour is will be found out by there being either a redundancy of hands out of work, or a redundancy of capital seeking for labour; and that is the policy of the law. But if any illegal means be taken, the principle of the common law steps in, and says that if any persons conspire and combine together to effect this illegal object, an object that is of itself illegal, any such conspiracy to effect the illegal object is itself criminal.' And with reference to the expressions used by the defendants, Rolfe, B., said, 'A great deal may be said as to the precise words used; what I think you should consider is not so much the very words, as whether the fair result of them was to intimate to the person to whom they were addressed, that some bodily harm would happen to him if he persevered in his intention of working at the prosecutors', when they only said, "It will be the worse for you " and "You will regret it," and so on. There are no particular words necessary to be used if the fair inference is that which has been taken, that it was to prevent the other party from persevering in the intention of working for the prosecutors, and unquestionably that would bring home the charge of intimidation.' And with respect to persuasion to leave their service, Rolfe, B., said, 'It is doubtless lawful for people to agree among themselves not to work except upon certain terms; that being so, I am not aware of any illegality in their peaceably trying to persuade others to adopt the same view. It is lawful for half a dozen people to agree together and "We say, will not work unless the prosecutors raise our wages." So it is perfectly reasonable to say to a third man, "You had better do that too," if they do not use threats, to deter him from doing it; but it is not necessary to use actual threats, if the language used is such as tends to convey the impression of intimidation.' And the learned Baron

afterwards added, 'My opinion is that, if there was no other object than to persuade people that it was their interest not to work except for certain wages, and not to work under certain regulations complied with in a peaceable way, it was not illegal.' (c)

(a) C. & M. 662, note. Parke, B. and Rolfe, B. were present. See R. v. Bykerdyke, 1 M. & Rob. 179.

(b) See R. v. Shepherd, 11 Cox, C. C. 325; R. v. Hibbert, 13 Cox, C. C. 82.

Cleasby, B. This is so now, see ss. 3 & 7 of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 86. Ante. pp. 546, 547.

(c) R. v. Selsby, 5 Cox, C. C. 495, note. Sp. As. 1847. See sec. 7, ante, p. 547.

Workmen Compelling Others to Quit Employment. On an indictment for a combination by workmen contrary to the 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, it appeared that the defendants were members of a society called the Philanthropic Society of Coopers. The society had an acting member in every cooper's yard. C. Evans, a member of the society, was working in Mr. Turner's yard; but, with his permission, he did four days' work at the steam mills of other masters, where steam machinery was employed for making casks. When this came to the knowledge of the society, they inflicted a fine of £10, payable by instalments, on Evans for working in a yard where steam machinery was employed. Evans refused to pay, and the other men in Mr. Turner's yard then left their work, and refused to return whilst Evans was employed. Evans was, in consequence, thrown out of work. Each man who left Turner's yard on account of Evans was paid 9s. for his loss of time by the committee. The fine was imposed in accordance with the rules of the society. Lord Campbell, C. J., was of opinion that the Philanthropic Society was, according to its rules, a lawful institution; but it could not be permitted that, under the guise of its laudable objects, the members should enter into a combination to injure others. By law every man's labour was his own, and he might make what bargain he liked for his own employment; but the men must not associate themselves to do that which might prejudice another man. The men may take care not to enter into engagements of which they do not approve; but they must not prevent another from doing so. It was clear the defendants unlawfully imposed a fine on Evans, and proceeded by unlawful means to induce him to pay that fine. (d)

Molesting and Obstructing Workmen and Employers. The first count stated that R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade as manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, and that divers persons were workmen, and hired and employed by and worked as workmen for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade, and that the prisoners unlawfully conspired, &c., by unlawfully molesting the workmen so hired and employed by and working for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade, to force and endeavour to force the said workmen so hired and employed by and working for the said R. P. and G. H. P., in their said. trade, to depart from their said hiring, employment and work. The second count was like the first, but stated the means to be by unlawfully using threats to the said workmen. The third was like the preceding, but stated the means to be by unlawfully intimidating the said workmen. The fourth, fifth, and sixth were similarly framed for conspiring to force individual workmen to depart from their hiring by the means stated in the first, second, and third counts respectively. The seventh count, like the first, stated that divers persons were workmen, and were hired and employed by and worked for R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade, and that the prisoners unlawfully conspired, &c., by unlawfully molesting the said R. P. and G. H. P., to force and endeavour to force the said workmen so hired, &c., to depart from their said hiring, &c. The eighth count was like the seventh, but stated the means to be by unlawfully obstructing the said R. P. and G. H. P., so carrying on their said trade, and the said workmen so hired, &c., by and working for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade. The ninth count stated that R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c., and that the prisoners unlawfully conspired, &c., by molesting the said R. P. and G. H. P.. to force and endeavour to force them to make an alteration in the mode of carrying on their said trade. The tenth count stated that workmen were hired, &c.,

(d) R. v. Hewitt, 5 Cox, C. C. 162, Feb. 1851.

by R. P. and G. H. P., as in the former counts, and that the prisoners unlawfully conspired by obstructing the said R. P. and G. H. P., and by inducing and persuading the said workmen in the hiring and employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P. to leave their hiring, employment, and work, to force and endeavour to force the said R. P. and G. H. P. to make an alteration in the mode of carrying on their said trade. The eleventh count stated that R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c., and that divers persons were being hired and employed as workmen for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade; and that the prisoners unlawfully conspired by molesting and obstructing such workmen as aforesaid as might be willing to be hired and employed by the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade, and who were not then hired and employed by the said R. P. and G. H. P., or by any other person, to prevent and endeavour to prevent the said workmen so willing to be employed, &c., from hiring themselves to, and from accepting work and employment from the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade. The twelfth count was like the eleventh, but stated the means to be by unlawfully using threats and intimidation to such workmen who might be willing, &c. The thirteenth (e) count stated that R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c., and that divers persons, being artificers, had contracted with the said R. P. and G. H. P. to serve them as artificers in their said trade for certain times and periods, &c., and had entered into the service of the said R. P. and G. H. P. as such manufacturers. And that the prisoners unlawfully conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices, to induce and persuade such artificers so having contracted, &c., and so having entered into the service, &c., unlawfully to absent themselves from the said service of the said R. P. and G. H. P., without the consent of either of them, before the respective terms of the same contracts were completed. The fourteenth count stated that W. H., being an artificer, had contracted, &c., for a period specified, and had entered into the service, and that the prisoners conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices, and illegal acts and practices, and by intoxicating the said W. H., to induce and persuade the said W. H., so having contracted, &c., and so having entered into the said service, &c., unlawfully to absent himself from the service of the said R. P. and G. H. P., without the consent of either of them before the term of the said contract was completed. The fifteenth count was like the fourteenth, but related to one T. G. The eighteenth count stated that the prisoners, intending to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade as manufacturers, &c., conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices, and by intoxicating and thereby rendering senseless the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade, to convey to a distance and carry away the said workmen, and thereby to prevent the said workmen from continuing to work for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade. The twentieth count stated that the prisoners conspired by divers subtle means and devices, and by illegal acts and practices, and by molesting and intoxicating the workmen in the employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P., and by inducing the workmen to depart from the said employment and to break their contracts with the said R. P. and G. H. P., to force and compel the said R. P. and G. H. P. to alter, and thereby increase, the amount of wages which the said R. P. and G. H. P. then were in the habit of paying to the workmen in their employment. Each count concluded to the great damage of the said R. P. and G. H. P.,' &c.

(e) This and the two following counts were framed with reference to the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, which related to workmen who

unlawfully absent themselves from their service before the end of the term for which they have been engaged.

In arrest of judgment it was urged that the first ten counts were too vague and the words 'molest,' 'threats,' 'intimidating,' and 'obstructing,' were objected to as not necessarily importing anything unlawful. To the eleventh and twelfth counts it was further objected that they ought to have alleged that the prisoners knew of the intended hiring, and that the names of the workmen ought to have been stated. That to follow the words of a statute was only sufficient where the indictment was on the statute, and here the charge was at common law; and that the offences created by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, s. 3, depended entirely upon the means used, and if those were not properly described, there was no sufficient charge of conspiracy to violate the statute. To the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth counts it was objected that they ought to have stated what the contracts were, and that the absence was without lawful excuse. That conspiring merely to induce and persuade,' as alleged in the tenth count, was no offence, even if a contract appeared which made it unlawful not to serve. But the Court of Queen's Bench held that the counts were wholly unexceptionable. Lord Campbell, C. J., It is objected that some counts do not disclose the nature of the molestation or intimidation by which the conspiracy was to take effect; but this is quite unnecessary. The words of the legislature are used; the terms in question have a meaning stamped upon them by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, s. 3, and we must take it that they are used here in that sense. And they are not employed, as describing the substantive offence for which the indictment is preferred; that offence consists in the conspiracy, which is a misdemeanor at common law.' (f)

Combinations of Workmen and of Masters for Mutual Advantage. In summing up this case to the jury, Erle, J., said, 'The law is clear that workmen have a right to combine for their own protection, and to obtain such wages as they choose to agree to demand. I say nothing at present as to the legality of other persons not workmen combining with them to assist in that purpose. As far as I know, there is no objection, in point of law, to it; and it is not necessary to go into that matter; but I consider the law to be clear so far only as while the purpose of the combination is to obtain a benefit for the parties who combine; a benefit which by law they can claim. I make that remark, because a combination for the purpose of injuring another is a combination of a different nature, directed personally against the party to be injured; and the law allowing them to combine for the purpose of obtaining a lawful benefit to themselves, gives no sanction to combinations, which have for their immediate purpose the hurt of another. The rights of workmen are con

(f) R. v. Rowlands, 17 Q. B. 671. 2 Den. C. C. 364. Sum. Ass. 1851. The other objections were not noticed. The sixteenth count stated that the prisoners conspired unlawfully to intimidate, prejudice, and oppress R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade as manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, and to prevent the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. from continuing to work for them in their said trade. The seventeenth count stated that the prisoners conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices, and wicked arts and practices, to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade of manufacturers of tin and japanned wares, and to induce the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. to depart from their hiring, employment, and work with the said R. P. and G. H. P. before the period of their

agreement with them was completed. The nineteenth count stated that the prisoners conspired, &c., unlawfully to intimidate, prejudice, and oppress R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade of manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, and to entice and seduce away the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. from their employment, and thereby to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade; and Lord Campbell, C. J., said, 'We all agree in thinking that the sixteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth counts are open to objection, as being too vague. We give no final opinion; but on these counts there will be a rule nisi to arrest the judgment, unless a nolle prosequi be entered; which the counsel for the crown consented to enter.