appear to us to afford an additional reason for not altering a law by which confederacies of this kind, entered into for no legitimate purpose and fraught with mischievous consequences, may be kept in check.

"The great interest which the public has in the due performance of contracts entered into for its accommodation makes it not unreasonable that men who enter into the service of those who contract with it, should be held responsible criminally for combining to break contracts where public mischief or inconvenience must result from a concerted and abrupt breach of their engagements.

"To the objection that, under an indictment for conspiracy men may be more severely punished for the offences punishable under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, than if proceeded against under that Act, the answer we think is, that the same offences as are there made subject to particular penalties when committed by individuals become far more serious when committed by persons acting in combination, and therefore may properly be visited with severer punish

ment.

"There is a greater difficulty in dealing with the third head of objection, namely, that by the application of the law of conspiracy men are made criminally liable for acts which are no longer penal under the statute law, and which ought not to be penally prohibited at all. It is urged that by the rulings of the judges in one or two cases recently tried, the proviso in 1st section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has been so construed as to deprive it of any practical value, and to leave men still liable to be indicted by the application of the general law of conspiracy for acts in respect of which

the Legislature, it is said, meant to afford immunity from punishment.

"As an instance of this, Mr. Baron Pollock, in a case of conspiracy tried before him at the summer assizes at Leeds in 1874, is reported to have directed the jury that if several workmen combined not to work with a particular person, and refused to work for an employer unless he dismissed that workman, this would amount to a conspiracy at common law, a doctrine which would of course equally apply to masters agreeing not to employ a particular workman, unless he left a particular society or union. We abstain from expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the law as reported to have been thus laid down; we content ourselves with saying that assuming the law to be as thus stated, we are of opinion that it requires amendment. Labour being free we think that men ought to be at perfect liberty, when not under contract, to agree among themselves not to work for a particular master, or with a particular workman who may be obnoxious to them; and that masters should in like manner be free to agree with one another not to employ particular men. There can be no possible doubt of the right of each individual, not bound by contract, in the exercise of his own free will to refuse to employ, or to work for or with anyone to whom he objects. There being nothing wrongful in such refusal, we fail to see how the agreement of several to the same effect, unaccompanied by any other circumstances of coercion, can be constituted a crime.

"We are, therefore, of opinion that the immunity contained in the proviso in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, in the sense in which it has been construed, is too limited,

and we also think it is expressed in too general terms, and that a more definite enactment is required.

"We therefore recommend that legislative provision should be made to the effect that no person shall be liable to be indicted for conspiracy, by reason only of the object of the combination being to force or control the action or will of any master or workman, in any matter relating to the mode of carrying on his business or work, unless the means of coercion to be resorted to shall be one of those mentioned in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, or be the wilfully breaking or procuring others to break any contract of hiring and service, and unless the object of such coercion shall be one of the purposes set forth in that Act.

"Whilst proposing thus to limit the cases in which men shall be liable to be indicted on the ground that the object is to interfere with the will of others in the conduct of their business or work, we have thought it right to add to the wrongful means set forth in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, that of wilful breaches of contract. It appears to us that when men combine to coerce by such means they may properly be made subject to the law of conspiracy, since both the end and the means are, in our opinion, for the reasons given in a former part of our report, wrongful.

"It is right to point out that the enactment we propose is not intended to give, and should be so framed as not to afford immunity to persons who may conspire to injure another in cases where the means resorted to for the purpose would constitute criminal conspiracy independently of any intention to coerce; for instance, if persons combine to defame a man or to induce him by false representation to do an act to his

prejudice they would still be liable to be indicted for conspiracy, although one of the objects might be to coerce; for apart from that object, the means being criminal or wrongful, the offence, without it, would be complete.

"With this exception, we are not prepared to recommend any alteration in the law of conspiracy, either in general or in its application to combinations coming within the scope of the laws relating to labour.

"The result, then, of the best consideration we have been able to give to the matters submitted to us is as follows:

"As regards the Master and Servant Act, we recommend that in all simple breaches of contract the summary jurisdiction provided by the Act should be divested of everything of a penal character, and be entirely of a civil nature. That the distinction between simple breach of contract and breach accompanied by circumstances of aggravation, should be maintained, and that if the latter shall remain subject to the same penalties as at present, a party complained against should have the option of taking the case to the quarter sessions to be tried by a jury; and, that if the latter shall be made the subject of civil remedy only, the maximum of imprisonment should be increased to six months.

"That as regards the Criminal Law Amendment Act the statute should remain unaltered, with the exception of the same provision as we propose with reference to cases arising under the 14th section of the Master and Servant Act, of having the case tried by a jury at the option of the party accused.

"As regards the law of conspiracy we recommend that the alteration we have suggested should be made, but we are not prepared to recommend any other alteration in the law.

E

This report was signed by all the Commissioners, except Mr. Macdonald, who expressed his dissent in these

terms:

"I find myself obliged to dissent from the report of the Commissioners. I am unable to adopt the general view given by the whole report. I agree with the report in thinking the Master and Servant Act badly drawn. I agree that 'breach of contract involves no criminality,' and that all criminality should be removed from the 9th section, but I think that damages beyond £10 should not be given, and that specific performance of time contracts should also be limited. Imprisonment to be used only to compel specific performance of the contract in the ordinary legal way, and to compel payment of damages, but not as a punishment for poverty.

"I do not agree with the reasons of the Commissioners against the repeal of the 14th section, which I think ought to be entirely removed. I am unable to accept the alternative proposal, which appears to me a compromise of the most objectionable kind. At the same time I feel bound to say that there are some conditions of employment which may require to be enforced by criminal law, as in mining operations. These are provided for by special statute, and if in any other occupations they should be found to be absolutely necessary, they should be legislated for in a similar manner. As I think the law should be altered in this way, it is not necessary for me to go into the question of the heavy costs incurred under the Master and Servant Act in Scotland, which has made this law more oppressive there than here.

"In reference to the cases that have been tried under the